Mortgages
	 — 
	Question

Lord Dubs: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ensure that mortgages for residential property are limited to a percentage of the value of the property and to a multiple of the applicant's earnings.

Lord Myners: My Lords, in 2004 the Government extended the scope of Financial Services Authority regulation to residential mortgages. The Government have asked the FSA to look at how new mortgages should be treated where the value of the loan exceeds the value of the property. The FSA has stated that it will publish a paper in September on mortgage regulation which will consider product regulation including maximum loan-to-value and loan-to-income caps.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. When I bought my house many years ago my mortgage was 70 per cent of the value and two and half times my salary, with my employer certifying that that was the case. Does my noble friend agree that if that had stayed the practice of the mortgage lenders, we would not have had to face most of the difficulties that we now face?

Lord Myners: My Lords, I agree that building societies and banks that advanced high loan-to-value ratio loans or high loan-to-income ratio loans have experienced above average default ratios. However, there are also other areas of difficulty around self-certified loans, the acquisition of mortgage books of loans and the buy-to-let area. Banks will need to learn a number of lessons in how they approach the financing of home ownership.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one of the main problems with sub-prime mortgages in the United States was the fact that the valuations themselves were fraudulent? Even in this country brokers have been known to press mortgages on to people who are in receipt of unemployment benefit.

Lord Myners: My Lords, I have read reports about valuation approaches in the United States of America. Some of those issues may well have occurred here and they are receiving the attention of the regulatory and prosecuting authorities.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, my noble friend told us some time ago that even the banks we control will be treated on an arm's-length basis. How does that fit in with what he is telling us now? For example, the banks were lending on commercial terms to unsuitable borrowers when house prices were very high. Now they are apparently going to be lending 90 per cent or even 100 per cent on houses whose prices are quite a bit lower. But presumably those loans will go only to suitable borrowers. Are the Government going to intervene?

Lord Myners: My Lords, the question of suitability, regardless of whether it applies to banks in which the Government have a temporary shareholding or to other banks, must be a matter for determination by the boards and management of those banks together with the regulators. The FSA's mortgage-regulation regime requires firms to lend responsibly; to satisfy themselves that borrowers have the ability to repay their mortgage; and to ensure that borrowers have full information about the products they are considering purchasing. That applies to banks regardless of whether the Government have a shareholding.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I am sure that the whole nation will be grateful that the FSA will produce a paper on this issue in September. However, does that not reflect an alarming lack of urgency? Can the Minister give any good reason why new mortgages should amount to more than 85 per cent of the value of the house? If he cannot, will he instruct the FSA to incorporate that into its guidance before September?

Lord Myners: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, raises a number of questions. I think that the lack of urgency is due to some extent to the fact that this particular horse has bolted. The proportion of loans being extended for more than 90 per cent of the value is now very low and a very high proportion of those loans are to borrowers with existing loans who are rolling the loans over or taking them from one mortgage provider to another. To some extent there is an enforced demand in place. That is an example of where the value of the property is quite close to the loan value but the loan is nevertheless required as a force of necessity.
	There are other circumstances that would discourage one from being prescriptive. For instance, a loan-to-value ratio could be high but there could be a third-party guarantee; or there could be a low multiple of earnings with a high degree of confidence and conviction about those earnings. So I think that we need to be slightly careful about broad-brush generalisations. However, market practice has certainly seen a significant reduction in the availability of high loan-to-value mortgages.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, if councils in the role of lender lend at 100 per cent, does that not put council tax payers' assets at risk?

Lord Myners: My Lords, the basic rules and principles of sound lending should apply to housing associations, councils, building societies and banks. If they do not, shareholders, depositors and taxpayers are placed at risk. Reckless lending applies to the nature of the loan rather than the identity of the lender.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, will controlling mortgage lending in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, stop households overgearing or will it simply drive them to more costly and more onerous forms of financing?

Lord Myners: My Lords, I think that it will be a force for more prudent behaviour. The sources of non-institutionalised lending really are quite limited now. For instance, the fact that banks are no longer securitising loans and selling them on, but rather retaining ownership of a higher proportion of their loans, with the responsibility that goes with that, is a force for more prudent and conservative lending.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, what support is offered to families who fail to make their mortgage payments to prevent them becoming homeless?

Lord Myners: My Lords, first, it is important to note that we are now in an environment of very low interest rates. Those low interest rates have been passed on to mortgage borrowers, so the cost of debt service has declined. However, unfortunately, there are people who are experiencing difficulties. That is why I am delighted to see that, this morning, my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing introduced and announced the details of the homeowner mortgage support scheme, with very substantial support from our major lenders. It will do much to ease the problems and difficulties of those who find themselves with a temporary difficulty in servicing their mortgage, although that must always be subject to independent advice. We do not want to see people accumulating even larger liabilities, which they will have even more difficulty in servicing in the future.

Railways: High-speed Line
	 — 
	Question

The Lord Bishop of Carlisle: To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to develop a high-speed rail line from London to the north-west and Scotland.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the Government have set up a new company, High Speed Two, to develop the case for high-speed services between London and Scotland.
	As a first stage, High Speed Two will report by the end of the year with a proposed route from London to the West Midlands, setting out any necessary options. It will also consider the potential for the line to extend to serve the north of England and Scotland.

The Lord Bishop of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he agree that at this time of growing unemployment, and to further targets for reducing carbon emissions and to improve our national infrastructure for growth after the recession, it is a highly opportune time to build the high-speed rail link? Does he further agree that because of the freight trains and the curves on the existing line north of Crewe, only a dedicated line will meet the need to reach the north and Glasgow quickly? Does he agree that, by comparison with other leading European nations, our progress with high-speed rail is woeful?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I understand that the right reverend Prelate retires from the See of Carlisle and the House at the end of the month. I think that I speak on behalf of the whole House in saying that he leaves with our very best wishes. I have greatly appreciated my conversations with him about transport issues, on which he is a great expert. I agree with almost all his questions, but I cannot speak for my right honourable friend the Chancellor in terms of commitments we are able to make in the future. However, I note with strong approval that the Synod of the Church of England recently passed the following resolution:
	"This Synod urges Her Majesty's Government ... to sustain employment opportunities, further environmental targets and strengthen future economic and social development by implementing the planning and development of a high-speed rail line from London to the North-West and Scotland".
	Now that the high-speed line has divine sanction, nothing can stand in its way.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his decision to spend the whole of last week travelling the length and breadth of Britain's railway system without a bag carrier or press officer in attendance and armed only with a standard class rail rover ticket was immensely appreciated by everybody who cares about our railways? Having spoken to so many people during the week that he was travelling, was his impression of the need for new investment in the railway in terms of electrification and the high-speed rail line enhanced as a result of that experience?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the highlight of my week was meeting my noble friend on the Swanage railway, where, for the first time in my life, I was on the footplate of a steam engine. That was immensely exciting for me but I think is a common occurrence for my noble friend. I, of course, embrace warmly the need for further investment in the railways and further investment is being put in place. As regards models for the future, when I finished my national tour at the York Railway Museum I was fortunate to arrive just as the Tornado was arriving on one of its trips out of London. There were vast crowds to see it. However, my particular concern was to have my picture taken next to the Japanese bullet train, which is a recent addition to the collection at the York Railway Museum, and which I have to say I see as rather more of a model for the future.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's comments on the crucial importance of the high-speed rail link to the north-west, will he not neglect the equally urgent need to improve the high-speed rail link from King's Cross to Newcastle and on to Edinburgh on the east coast line? In the light of his recent experiences, did he enjoy the privilege of dining at his seat on National Express?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I will take up the case of the tuna sandwich and the tomato juice. However, I did not have the opportunity to enjoy the at-seat dining facilities on the East Coast Main Line because I was in the cab. Therefore, I had a better view of what was going on, particularly the issue which I know will be of concern to the noble Lord, which is that the East Coast Main Line north of Darlington has a much lower line speed than south of Darlington, where it is 125 miles an hour for a good part of the way. A key issue as we develop high-speed services is that we can get fast running all the way to Scotland. Therefore, I had to forgo the sandwich, steak and other delicacies on offer on the East Coast Main Line in order to get some practical experience.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, following the supplementary question of the right reverend Prelate, my interest is that my carbon footprint created in getting to Westminster would be 70 times less if we had a high-speed rail line from Scotland. Given that the Atkins report has costed the Government's proposal at around £31 billion, does the Minister have an updated figure on the possible benefit to the economy?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I passed through Montrose on my journey and thought of the noble Duke, who I imagined owned everything I could see. I do not have an updated figure, but I am in the market if anyone wishes to make a contribution.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in his replies the Minister has been looking forward, rather apocalyptically, to the construction of new railway lines. Would he not agree that it is important in the current world that existing rail lines run as swiftly as possible, and that every effort is made to achieve that? I declare an interest as someone who was an hour late on the north-west main line yesterday.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, which is precisely why I spent a week travelling on the railways to see what is in fact going on. Whatever we manage to achieve in terms of high-speed rail over the coming years—and I see this as an important priority for the country—the great majority of travellers will be travelling on the existing railway, and in particular those who commute in and out of our major cities want to see more carriages, the best possible value and the fastest journey times that we can offer them.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although the High Speed Two line will be very welcome, there is a very urgent need, as has been stated, to upgrade services on the GNER, London and north-east lines? Also, will he give attention to how much use can be made of the Midland Mainline, which I believe the Government wish to electrify? By so doing, many more cities in this country would have the benefit of better rail services than would be the case with HS Two

Lord Adonis: My Lords, as the noble Lord rightly says, we are looking in detail at the case for electrifying the Midland Mainline for precisely the reasons that he gives. In terms of improving the East Coast Main Line, a programme of work is taking place in the next five years that will remove bottlenecks and make it possible to have higher running speeds over some parts of it. As the noble Lord knows better than anyone in the House, there are a number of constraints on the East Coast Main Line north of Darlington, where track alignments make it very difficult to get much higher running speeds.

Economy
	 — 
	Question

The Earl of Caithness: To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the extent to which Government policy has contributed to the current economic situation.

Lord Myners: My Lords, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a Statement on the 2009 Budget at 12.30 pm tomorrow. As normal, the Budget will include forecasts for the UK and world economies, incorporating all relevant factors.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, given the complete mess that the Treasury made of last year's forecasts—it expected a budget deficit of 2 per cent of GDP when it is more likely to be 10 per cent, and expected economic growth of at least 2.5 per cent when in fact it is likely to be minus 3.5 per cent—would the Minister agree with the OECD that half of our problems were structural and related to government policy and nothing to do with the worldwide recession? What are the Government going to do about that?

Lord Myners: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give a detailed analysis of the situation in the world and domestic economies when he makes his Budget presentation tomorrow. We are in the midst of a truly extraordinary global recession. For the first time in 60 years, the IMF has forecast a net reduction in added value for global economic activity. This problem is not confined to one country; it is a global problem. That is why the Prime Minister, in his chairmanship of the G20, led a global solution.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, on the basis that the noble Earl is looking for a statistical answer to his Question, would my noble friend not agree that a more reasonable estimate of blame would be 10 per cent for Her Majesty's Government and 90 per cent for national and multinational banks and financial institutions?

Lord Myners: My Lords, there is a spurious accuracy to my noble friend's data. However, he has put his finger on the fact that the problem that we have in the global economy at the moment is inextricably linked to the contraction of credit as a consequence of the difficulties that the world's major banks have found themselves in. That is why this problem is not limited to the United Kingdom, but is global. Restoring the banks' ability to lend through recapitalisation, managing their damaged assets, strengthening their funding and making liquidity available is at the heart of the programme that not only have we followed in this country but has been followed by other countries which have seen the wisdom of the action that we have taken.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, will the Minister explain to simple-minded folk like me how it is that when the British economy was expanding, at a time when the whole world economy was expanding, that was entirely to do with the success of the British Government; but now that the British economy is contracting rather faster than most of the world in a contracting world economy, it is nothing to do with us but is entirely to do with the world?

Lord Myners: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, knows that I am new to the world of politics, so it is perhaps harder for me to find an easy answer to that question than it would be for many others who have come to this House from the other place. But let us look at the facts. Over the 10 years to 1996, GDP per capita in the UK was the lowest in the G7. Over the following 10 years, it was the second highest in the G7. Since 1997, which was an important year, as no doubt the noble Lord remembers, UK real GDP per capita has increased by more than any other G7 economy. That was a tribute to the masterful management of the economy by my right honourable friend who was the Chancellor in those days, who is now our Prime Minister.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I am sure that everyone in the House accepts that there is a global recession. Does the Minister accept that a number of contributory factors are home-grown, such as the lax regulation of banks and building societies over a number of years, the ratcheting up of budget deficits during the boom and the Government extolling ever higher and excessive pay levels for top corporate executives? Does he further accept that if the Government were to accept even a small proportion of the responsibility for some of these things, they might be in a better position to argue convincingly for recovery?

Lord Myners: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, identifies a number of contributory factors to the problems that the global economy currently faces. We can take some encouragement from the fact that our debt as a percentage of GDP is the second lowest in the G7 countries, which means that we are in a strong position to be able to support the fiscal stimulus that we are now applying to support British business, British pensioners and British families in coping with a global problem.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, we are sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is not in his place today. Does the Minister agree with his noble friend that the warnings of the IMF that the UK economy was the least well prepared are now ringing true and that the Prime Minister's reputation for sound economics was destroyed even before the recession?

Lord Myners: My Lords, I note that my noble friend Lord Desai is publishing a novel. No doubt he was reaching out for any opportunity for publicity and he could not possibly let slip the chance to write an article for the Evening Standard. I read that article with interest. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, clearly has considerable art and skill in the act of fiction.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one of the less masterful elements of managing the economy has been the astronomical growth in personal borrowing? Have the Government learnt any lessons from this, and is there anything that they would have done differently, with the advantage of hindsight?

Lord Myners: My Lords, the report by the noble Lord, Lord Turner, referred to the increase in leverage in this economy and elsewhere. That has been picked up by the G20 meeting and by the work of the Financial Stability Forum, which referred to macroprudential requirements to reduce the growth in debt and leverage in economies going forward. That action is now receiving a great deal of attention, and perhaps it should have received more attention in the past than it did.

Lord Lang of Monkton: My Lords, as the last Chancellor of the Exchequer got his borrowing forecasts wrong by ever widening margins in almost every year that he held that office, and as his successor got his wrong by even wider margins in the Pre-Budget Report and his first Budget, why should we believe a word that either of them say tomorrow about future forecasts?

Lord Myners: My Lords, on the extent to which the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer got his borrowing forecasts wrong, it was because the economy was so buoyant that he was able to borrow more. His borrowings as a percentage of GDP were very close to forecast, and I am sure that the skills of the Treasury will continue to be available to his successor, my right honourable friend the Chancellor. We will see his forecasts tomorrow, and receive them with the support and encouragement needed to provide the confidence that is essential to take us out of this global recession toward a prosperous future.

Police: Protests
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, following the decision of the Metropolitan Police to review their policies for policing protests, they will encourage other police forces to do the same.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, we welcome the commissioner's decision to invite Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to review the police tactics involved in policing G20. That is consistent with the police service's commitment to reviewing and examining tactics and operations continually. We shall ensure that the conclusions of the HMIC review are disseminated nationwide to ensure that the lessons are picked up by all police forces.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's reply, particularly the undertaking that the inquiry will look at whether the tactics were appropriate. Clearly, some were not and some were disgraceful. Does the Minister agree that there is a great need to endorse the public's right to peaceful protest, and that some of the culture that has grown up in police forces—filming people at protests as if they were suspects and, in the case of the Nottinghamshire police, raiding a planning meeting for a protest before anything had happened—are examples of protest having become, among some elements of the police, somewhat equated to criminal activity?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I absolutely agree that we have a right to protest; it is one of this country's great freedoms. Before I say anything more, we should not lose sight of the fact that, the week before the G20, the "Put People First" demonstration had 30,000 people marching through London, and that went off peacefully. We should also not lose sight of this: during the course of the G20, thousands of officers acted absolutely professionally and proportionately, and thousands of people were able to demonstrate peacefully on our streets, while criminal activity in the rest of the metropolis was kept to an absolute minimum. The police maintained high levels of security; we should be extremely proud of them. That is not to excuse criminal acts, and investigations are now taking place on those particulars. However, in general we are very well served by our police. I am proud of them, and my general approach is that they are on our side. They are our people, and that is the way to do it.

Lord Dear: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most of the world's developed countries, when dealing with serious public disorder, do not rely solely on uniformed police in close or face-to-face contact with the demonstrators? In those countries, as we know, unrest or disorder, as it escalates, is met with other responses—CS gas, baton rounds or water cannon, and so on. In the light of that, can the Minister reassure your Lordships' House that all of those options will be explored in the forthcoming review? For the record, I do not personally applaud those methods, but the Minister may agree that a through review of the pros and cons of those options will equip us better to comment on our present approach, with all its advantages and disadvantages.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, Sir Paul Stephenson has asked Denis O'Connor, the chief inspector of constabulary at HMIC, to look at a number of issues, including the effectiveness and impact of current public order tactics. He will look particularly at containment and kettling, an area where there has been some debate; at liaison with the media, where the issue of dealing with journalists has not always gone quite right; and at communication with the public and protestors, where there is clearly a need for more dialogue. He will cover all of those issues.
	I do not like the thought of water cannon, baton rounds or shooting people, all of which seem to occur in some other countries; I am jolly glad that I live in this one. However, all of those things will, quite rightly, be looked at. On the timing of the report, we hope that will be in early or mid-July.

Lord Naseby: My Lords—

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords—

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, let us hear from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, first and then from my noble friend Lord Howarth.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, given what happened outside the Houses of Parliament yesterday, what possible incentive is there for the police to control a situation where a proscribed organisation of terrorists is allowed to stage a sit-in that continues for seven hours? Is that what we call honest, genuine demonstration in this country?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the Metropolitan Police Service will of course be looking at any action that breaks the law, so if there is an issue about proscription, that will be covered. Again, the police handled that demonstration extremely well. That shows that the rules about demonstrating around Parliament need to be changed; we intend to do just that.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, following on from the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, does my noble friend accept that there is no principle in our liberal democracy that says that people, in exercising the right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech, should be allowed to block access to Parliament? However much sympathy some of us may have for the plight of the Tamils, should not the police yesterday have ensured that access to Parliament was unimpeded, not just for parliamentarians and staff but, just as important, for other citizens?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the detail of the operation is for the Metropolitan Police. I am sure that the Metropolitan Police will take action against those who have broken the law.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords—

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords—

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have not yet heard from the Liberal Democrats.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, under what circumstances are police officers allowed or even advised to cover their personal number identification?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a very important point, on which we touched yesterday. It is absolutely wrong that that should happen. I know that Sir Paul Stephenson will be intent on getting to the root of that, finding out exactly what happened. The police are not above the law. They are servants of the people. We police by consent. What happened is wrong and will be tracked down and resolved.

Communications Committee
	 — 
	Membership Motion

Moved By The Chairman of Committees
	That Lord Gordon of Strathblane be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, resigned.
	Motion agreed.

Disabled Persons (Independent Living) Bill [HL]
	 — 
	Order of Commitment Discharged

Moved By Lord Ashley of Stoke
	That the order of commitment be discharged.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to the Bill, and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. With the agreement of the Committee, I will now put the Question that I report the Bill to the House without amendment.
	Motion agreed.
	Bill reported without amendment.

Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

Copy of Bill
	Explanatory Notes
	Amendments
	1st Report Delegated Powers Committee
	1st Report Constitution Committee
	11th Report Joint Committee Human Rights

Committee (11th Day)

Clause 287 : General provision about the coastal access duty
	Amendment A282ZA
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	A282ZA: Clause 287, page 175, line 3, at end insert—
	"( ) They must have regard to the desirability of commissioning any relevant local authorities to exercise any functions under this Part including, in particular—
	(a) the delineation of the coastal route;
	(b) the delineation of any alternative route;
	(c) the demarcation of the coastal margin; and
	(d) the provision of suitable facilities."

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am reluctant to delay proceedings as I know it is the wish of the usual channels that we conclude the Bill's Committee stage today. The Minister, I and others who are active in the Bill's passage will therefore wish to see business speedily transacted.
	In many ways, Amendment A282ZA relates to the most important element of this part of the Bill—namely, how we bring it all together and actually create the coastal path. I am aware of the dialogue that we have already established. It has been very useful to have the briefings on this aspect of the Bill. The Government have sought to address the locality issue directly in their briefing note headed, "Role of local authorities and extent of their consultation". I understand it to accept much of my argument. Indeed, I think the Government have it in mind that local authorities should play a key part. The Minister said as much when we were last in Committee, in response to an amendment from my noble friend Lady Byford.
	My amendment seeks to enshrine that role by placing this involvement on the face of the Bill. Noble Lords following the debates on this Bill will know how important I consider the role of local authorities in ensuring the delivery of a coastal path that provides the general public with access to the coast for them to enjoy and use safely. At the same time, the line of the route must be such as to minimise the pressure on those in occupation and ownership of the route. Local knowledge must be the key, and ensuring where possible that there is agreement at local level will encourage both the speedy setting up of the designated path and buy-in from all those involved.
	For many reasons, I believe the experience of local authorities will be vital to this process. Most important of all is the local knowledge and experience that those currently responsible for the footpath network can bring to the task. It is certain that they would have an easier dialogue with landowners and local interest groups than a Whitehall-based government agency. I think that Natural England itself recognises this; it is about delivering what the Bill seeks as efficiently and painlessly as possible. Using local authorities in the way this amendment suggests will expedite the creation of the path and, as I hope to show, invest it with a greater utility and bring the community centre-stage on the project.
	The Committee needs to remember that this Bill deals with the awkward remainder. While much of the coast already has coastal paths—many created by custom—other stretches have been created by Highway Act powers under which compensation has been given to occupiers and landowners. However, this is a different matter. The good will of landowners, farmers and other occupiers of the land is vital to bring the remainder into existence. I believe that local authorities will have better access to that good will.
	We should not forget that this Bill builds paths in what are often the most difficult cases. It is not for nothing that this is so, as by definition, what we are catering for are those places where access up to now has not been possible. We have to reconcile all those complex aspects of the Bill which our debates up to now have brought to the Committee's notice.
	I am certain that access to the coastal path itself from existing inland roads and pathways is a key to its success in achieving its purpose as a recreational resource for the public to enjoy. It can be of no use to have a path stuck out of reach from the locality. That is why locally organised bus services and car parks are an equal part of the strategy. The most enjoyable walks are circuits, and few will walk long distances of more than 10 miles along the length of the route. Therefore, access to the coastal path itself is important, and integration is vital. Indeed, in our previous debate on this subject, the Minister mentioned how important this was for the success of the south-west coastal path. Given that the Minister has said that his belief is that such connections are not part of the coastal path and would have to be provided by local authorities at their expense, what encouragement will they be given to provide connections? Is this not, of its own, yet another reason why local authorities should be in the key role of drawing up the line of the path?
	I am not sure where in the Bill this matter is best addressed but I am sure that the best agent for delivering a coastal path that is readily accessible for casual walkers is the local authority. By all means let Natural England badge the route. It can ensure consistency—or, to use an analogy, exercise editorial control—but it is not the best author of the detail. It will be Natural England that presents the final report but meanwhile it should be prepared to commission and fund local authorities to designate the line. County councils or the appropriate right-of-way authority will link in with local services for which they are responsible, such as bus routes. Likewise, they can liaise with district councils over the provision of car parks and the development of facilities.
	This is to increase the recreational asset value of the coastal path for the benefit of all users. There are likely to be situations which, without proper precautions, may put users of the path in danger. Local knowledge will minimise this. Paths will be subject to seasonal pressures, which may be linked to wildlife, and in some cases tidal pressures, and alternative routes will need to be considered and managed. Furthermore, if use is to be broadened to include other classes of users, such as horse riders, this will need to be determined through the situation on the ground, being permitted only if local conditions allow.
	Whatever, the utility and durability of the path will be highly dependent on it being placed in the optimum balance, taking account of proximity to the coast, accessibility and ease of use for the public in general. Local knowledge is the way to facilitate that, and it can be best brought to bear by local authorities. We know from the Countryside and Rights of Way Act that much time was expended on appeals, and noble Lords will not want a repeat of that. Agreement between a local authority and landowners and occupiers will be much easier to obtain and will avoid unnecessary dispute. This is surely what local buy-in means to this great project. It need not be seen as a threat; if constructed in a sensitive manner, it can be a facility from which local communities can only gain. That is why, if we want this path to be a success, we should write the role of local authorities into the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: We have the second amendment in this group, Amendment A324. The underlying ethos behind it is, I think, the same as that of the Conservative amendment, although the wording is slightly different. Our amendment would insert the words:
	"Before preparing a report, Natural England may enter into an arrangement with one or more relevant access authorities in which the authority or authorities, or persons employed by them, carry out some or all of the preparatory work on its behalf".
	Whatever the wording and wherever it should be placed in the Bill, it is our view that, for many of the reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and others, it is important that the role of local access authorities in preparing these reports and maintaining the route is acknowledged in the Bill.
	The noble Lord mentioned that the Government have already said that local authorities will be closely involved, and that is true. Indeed, Natural England has set out the same thing in a very helpful document. Taking the scheme as a whole, I think that the draft coastal access scheme, published by Natural England in January, instils a lot of confidence in the words in the Bill. These people have looked at the Bill and thought that it is a bit thin—that it is an outline Bill rather than a framework Bill which includes all the detail it should. Reading what Natural England proposes puts a great deal of confidence behind what is being proposed here. Nevertheless, our view is that some of what is in this scheme should be in the Bill.
	Paragraph 3.1.2 of the scheme states:
	"We aim to work closely with access authorities throughout the process of alignment and establishment of the coastal access rights, combining our nationally consistent approach with their detailed understanding of local circumstances. We will therefore discuss with them the basis for dividing up the coast that they cover and the sequence in which each stretch should be implemented".
	Paragraph 3.1.3 states that,
	"once started, work with the access authority should continue until a report (or reports) has been completed for the whole of the coastline within the authority's area".
	There are further references as well.
	In December 2008, Natural England published another excellent document, on coastal access supplementary information. Paragraph 5.5 states that its,
	"current estimates for staff and support costs"
	include the cost of this in access authorities. This is based on the working assumption that the access authorities will manage the local alignment field work and consultation and implement it once it has been approved. It is clear that Natural England believes that all the donkey work in producing the coastal path and maintaining it will be carried out by the local access authorities. Natural England will supervise and manage and perhaps put one or two people in on the ground to co-ordinate and manage what the local authority is doing. That is fine because it provides people locally with a great deal of confidence that the consultation and careful work with the landowners, user interests, natural history interests and everyone else will be carried out properly.
	There will be a great deal of further confidence in the Bill if this proposal is included. It does not have to be more than two or three lines, but if it is in the Bill, it cannot be changed and will happen in the way that Natural England and the Government want to do it. In five or 10 years' time, the existing management of Natural England may not exist. The present Government will not exist, but their successors will. There will be a new Secretary of State and so on. What appears in the Bill is crucial in these cases. I have therefore put forward my amendment, and I support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I support these amendments. My experience is that in these situations personal relations matter more than anything else. It is crucial to know the right people to talk to, how to get people to talk to one another, which organisations take what attitude and how they get on with local landowners and managers, and all that kind of thing. As the noble Lord who has just spoken knows as a councillor, local government people know how to do that as well as anyone. I cannot imagine that Natural England, being parachuted in as representatives of the Government of the day, is likely to get the same kind of response. It would be much more difficult but very much in its interests if it did this through local government and if that were allowed in the Bill. It should be in the Bill. It makes sense of local government and it makes sense for this exercise.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This debate is a helpful introduction to, one hopes, our final day in Committee on the Bill. I agree with the noble Lords and the noble Baroness on the role of local government, particularly the access authorities. I agree that local knowledge must be the key. I also agree that constructive dialogue with all the parties, including the land owners, is much to be preferred as it is likely to lead to a more consensual approach. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggested, we undoubtedly wish to avoid some of the problems that have arisen with the CROW Act, particularly in relation to the appeal system.
	I also very much agree that good local authorities should enhance personal relationships and help to get agreement about the coastal path. I also agree that access to the path and circular walks by public transport and so on is very important, and that there needs to be proper integration. The role of local authorities is very important to that. We see local authorities being extremely important pastors in the costal access project.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, rightly referred to Natural England's document on the draft scheme, which refers explicitly to the role of local authorities. Schedule 19 to the Bill provides for the practical powers that are necessary to enable Natural England to identify, establish and maintain the English coastal route. I can confirm that, wherever practical, Natural England will enter into agreements with access authorities to carry out the work of establishing the route on the ground.
	In addition, county councils and county district councils are statutory consultees under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and as a result must be consulted by Natural England before it draws up a report on a section of coast in their area. In addition, under regulations that will be made under new Section 55E in Clause 292, Natural England will be required to give access authorities for the particular area covered by the coastal access report the opportunity to make representations on that report. I well understand why noble Lords wish to have confirmation of this by ensuring that it appears in the Bill. I have said that it is our intention that local authorities will be key partners in implementing coastal access, but in the light of the views that have been expressed today, I am happy to take away the points that have been made and consider further what we might be able to put into legislation to answer noble Lords' concerns about this matter. I do not disagree in principle with anything that both noble Lords and the noble Baroness have said this afternoon.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: That is very encouraging, and I thank the Minister for getting our debate today off to such a constructive start. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment A282ZA withdrawn.
	Amendment A282A
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	A282A: Clause 287, page 175, line 4, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	"(4) References to a person having a relevant interest in land shall have the same meaning as that in Section 45 of the CROW Act (interpretation of Part I)."

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: In moving Amendment A282A, I shall also speak to the other amendments in the group. The amendments seek to clarify who is considered to have a relevant interest in land. The Bill is confusing in two respects; the relevant definitions of Clauses 287 and 292 are not the same as the definitions that are used in the CROW Act, and even more confusingly, despite the similarity between the schemes—indeed, the Bill uses CROW Act mechanisms extensively—the two definitions are not even the same as each other. The question of who has a relevant interest in land is not trivial. We will come to the much anticipated debate over the right to an appeal, but even with the current provisions in the Bill it is acknowledged that those with a relevant interest in land should have certain privileges when it comes to the right to be consulted and to make representations. Indeed, the Minister confirmed that in an earlier debate, so I expect him to agree to this position.
	In all the enthusiasm for establishing a coastal access route, which we all agree is a good thing, we must not forget that we are extending the public sphere into private ground. Inevitably, there will be an impact not only on those who hold the land outright but on those who currently use it. Quite rightly, the CROW Act considered that those holding a licence or agreement on the land also have an interest. They have often paid significant amounts of money for the right to undertake various activities. Why have the Government chosen to exclude them from having an interest taken into account, or is this just an inadvertent error in drafting the Bill? I beg to move.

Baroness Hayman: If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments A282B and A282C by reason of pre-emption.

Lord Davies of Oldham: This is not an inadvertent error by the Government—as if anyone could conceive of such a thing. There is an issue to consider here, and I hope to be able to convince the noble Lord that we have thought through these issues very carefully, and that where we differentiate from the CROW Act it is for good reason and not because of any slip on the part of the Government. We will be considering a number of general issues relating to the consultation on Natural England's report, and I do not want to pre-empt those discussions now.
	This group of amendments specifically seeks to extend the definition of a relevant interest in affected land to include those with other interests. That is because, as the noble Lord has said, the CROW legislation provides for that, and this legislation should follow it. This is an important point because such persons must be consulted under new Section 55D before the report by Natural England is prepared, and are then able to make representations which go in full to the Secretary of State. However, the CROW legislation includes other interests inland such as rights of common, rights of grazing and sporting rights. These interests were particularly relevant to the types of land involved in CROW itself. They include open country, which is defined in the Act as mountain, moor, heath and down, as well as registered common land. The CROW land includes a number of grouse moors, which make shooting interests pertinent to the legislation, while rights of common were particularly important as the mapping process involved mapping areas of registered common land.
	The situation at the coast, which is what this part of the legislation is concerned with, and the implementation of the coastal access duty, is quite different. A great number of different interests—access interests as well as landed interests—are concerned with the coast. Moreover, the land types and the different interests which will be affected by the proposals for the coast are much less uniform than those identified for the CROW legislation. We believe, therefore, that it is appropriate to have a different definition of relevant interests which ensures that those likely to be particularly affected by giving public access to land at the coast are consulted and can make representations on the report, which then go in full to the Secretary of State. The Committee will recognise that these are very important provisions indeed. Thus it has been with great care rather than through inadvertence that we have identified and set out in the Bill the people who it is appropriate to include within the definition of those with a relevant interest in affected land. These are set out in Clause 287 and new Section 55J in Clause 292; namely, the owner of the land, a leaseholder and a person in lawful occupation of the land.
	I shall make a cardinal point in saying that this is the most appropriate approach to take for coastal land. I hope the noble Lord will accept that the Government have thought about these issues very seriously. In many ways what he suggests might have been looked on as the easier course of just following the definition in the CROW Act. But the coastal path and coastal land affect different interests and because of that difference I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment, with the reassurance that the Government have considered this issue with the greatest care.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the Government's thinking on this matter. It struck us as strange that Clause 287(4)(a) talks about someone who,
	"holds an estate in fee simple absolute in possession in the land",
	yet in Clause 292 the wording of proposed new Section 55J(2)(a) is,
	"is the owner of the land".
	Having two different wordings seems a little strange. There is also the question of principle that some people may have an interest in land for which they have paid money which entitles them to a certain use of the land but will not necessarily, as far as this legislation is concerned, entitle them to be considered to have an interest. I am not sure the Government are right on that but I am grateful for the Minister's explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment while we consider it.
	Amendment A282A withdrawn.
	Amendments A282B and A282C not moved.
	Clause 287 agreed.
	Clause 288 : The coastal access scheme
	Amendment A283 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendment A284
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	A284: Clause 288, page 175, line 10, leave out "approach it will take" and insert "procedures and policies it will follow"

Lord Greaves: I will also speak to Amendments A286, A287, A289. A290, A291, A293, A294, A295, A296, A297 and A299, which stand in my name and that of my noble friend. This group also contains some amendments from the Conservatives and the government amendment which we look forward to hearing about in due course.
	These amendments are about the coastal access scheme, a national scheme which will be put together by Natural England. As I have said, we have had the benefit of seeing the draft scheme, which is already very considerably developed. That is good news for those of us debating it here today. We do not always get information in quite such detail about what is going to happen as a result of the legislation which we are discussing. Natural England is to be congratulated on having got the draft scheme to the stage that it is at, although obviously it is still subject to amendment, not least by this legislation when it is finally passed by Parliament. The scheme will be approved by the Secretary of State, who lays out how Natural England will produce reports and create coastal access—the route and the marginal land or spreading room—in each part of the coast. The Bill says that Natural England must prepare a scheme setting out the approach it will take. That seems to be fairly vague wording and Amendment A284 suggests that, instead of talking about the approach, it should consist of the procedures and the policies. This is partly probing to find how much policy this document will contain and how much it will be a procedural and operational document, as well as suggesting more exact wording.
	Amendment A286 says that the coastal access scheme must require Natural England to discharge the coastal access duty by means of preparing reports under Section 51 of the 1949 Act. This is for clarity. There seems to be an omission here that ought to be filled.
	Amendment A287 probes the question of the status of the coastal access scheme, and the Conservative amendments probe in a similar area. At the moment the Bill says that the scheme requires the approval of the Secretary of State but parliamentary approval is not required. The government amendment that we are going to discuss says that it has to be laid before Parliament; obviously each House, if a document is laid before it, can discuss it and make recommendations, but it is not subject to parliamentary approval.
	Again, what kind of document is it? If it is a policy document, like a planning policy document, then it is probably not right that it should be subject to parliamentary approval because policy is a matter for the Government. If, however, it is a procedural and operational document that sets out the ways in which the coastal access proposals will be put forward, then it ought to be a statutory instrument. At the moment, it appears to be a bit of one and a bit of the other. The amendment probes just how far parliamentary scrutiny of the scheme will be appropriate, because it will be the key document in putting together the structure for how the new regime is going to work.
	Amendment A289 says that when the coastal access scheme is put to the Secretary of State for approval, the Secretary of State would have to give reasons for his approval or rejection of the scheme. I do not need to say any more about that. The reasons for putting forward the amendment are self-evident.
	Amendment A299 says that the Secretary of State's reasons would have to be published at the same time as the scheme, as approved by him. Again, the reasons are self-evident. If the Secretary of State has to put forward reasons, they should be published.
	Amendment A290 probes what happens if a scheme is rejected. We are suggesting that a new scheme should be produced within 12 months. It would be a disaster if the scheme were rejected, and one hopes that that situation would never occur. But if it occurs, what happens and what is the timescale?
	Amendments A291 and A293 probe the curious wording in the Bill that suggests that there could be more than one scheme. It is not clear how there could be more than one, but the use of the phrase "a scheme" suggests that there could. We are simply suggesting that "a" should be replaced by "the" because we understand that there will be only one scheme at any given time. The appropriate article is therefore the definite, not the indefinite.
	Amendment A294 would require Natural England, before preparing or revising a scheme, to publish its intention to do so and to consult appropriate people.
	Amendment A296 talks about the appropriate persons to be consulted on schemes and suggests that they should include,
	"representatives of ... persons with a relevant interest in coastal land"—
	as we have just discussed with regard to the previous group of amendments,
	"local access forums ... relevant recreational users and conservation interests, and ... access authorities".
	It is common sense that that would happen anyway but, if the scheme is going to get general acceptance and consensus, it ought to be in the Bill.
	Amendment A299 says that if there are modifications by the Secretary of State when the scheme is published, the reasons for those modifications should be published.
	This is a long group and these are quite complicated and technical amendments, but in practice the reasons why we are putting them forward are pretty evident in each case, so I will say no more. I beg to move.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is correct. This is a long and complex group of amendments but it is designed to achieve a straightforward objective; namely, scrutiny and transparency. The amendments are designed to increase the transparency of those operations which will be necessary to the process of decision-making surrounding the creation of a coastal access scheme.
	Amendment A288 ensures that any scheme which the Secretary of State has approved must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. It is right for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny to be applied to such an important decision. We are grateful that the Government have conceded in principle by tabling Amendment A292.
	Further amendments in this group increase the transparency of this process. Amendment A289A requires that if the Secretary of State rejects the scheme he must notify Natural England of his reasons. This is of the utmost importance to ensure a public and fair process. It makes sense that there should be full and open dialogue between the Secretary of State and all those engaged in this task. Does the Minister agree that if the Secretary of State can reject a scheme prepared by Natural England, it makes sense for Natural England to be informed of the reasons? Does he accept that if under subsection 2(b) the Secretary of State can issue a notice requiring a new scheme to be produced, that will be very difficult if Natural England is not aware why the first scheme was rejected? Common sense suggests that this is the only way that Natural England can get the scheme right. If, as would be sensible, the scheme is approved in sections, this would enable Natural England to hear the Secretary of State's view and learn from it.
	We agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that Natural England should publish the reasons the Secretary of State gave for approving the scheme. Our amendment A299A builds on this and means that Natural England must publish the reasons that the Secretary of State gave for rejecting the scheme. This will improve transparency. It will ensure that all parties concerned have the opportunity to question the legitimacy of the reasons and thus reinforce the need for decisions to be based on absolute fairness. All parties should be in the picture. This is not a process that will benefit from deals behind closed doors. Does the Minister agree that it is right that the opportunity for scrutiny is provided?
	Further to this, Amendment A295A requires that Natural England must not only publish the scheme, or sections of the scheme, but also put it out to public consultation. The Minister must agree with me that a coastal access scheme will affect a very large number of disparate groups of people. Does he also agree that it is right that these, often local, people should be allowed and indeed encouraged to use their knowledge to question and improve the scheme?
	We welcome the Government's Amendments A292 and A298 in the interests of increased scrutiny, both by Parliament and by the public. I look forward to hearing the Minister describe the different methods of publication which Natural England may deploy. My only slight reservation in this area is that I hope the choice of media used to publish the scheme would reflect a concern to widen access to it rather than narrow it. What safeguards would the Minister consider appropriate to ensure that this was the case?

Baroness Byford: I apologise for my late arrival; unfortunately, I could not get here earlier.
	My Amendment A289A is a simple probing amendment. The use of the indefinite article suggests that the Government feel there may be more than one case. If this is so, will the Minister explain the Government's thinking? My Amendment A146B covered the same relative point, and I hope that the Minister can clarify it for me.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In responding to this group of amendments, I also speak to two government amendments.
	First, the amendments are helpful in teasing out some details of how the scheme will be taken forward with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. We are responding to concerns raised in your Lordships' House today, and earlier by the departmental Select Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, regarding the scheme and the involvement of Parliament. The scheme would benefit from the input of Members of both Houses. That is why I will be moving Amendment A292, which would require the Secretary of State, once he has approved the scheme, to lay a copy before Parliament and, where that scheme is revised, a copy of the revised scheme. This is the procedure recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The amendment would provide Natural England with an opportunity to take account of any suggestions on the scheme arising from debates by noble Lords and Members of the other place. The scheme could then, if necessary, be revised under Clause 288(4), subject to further approval by the Secretary of State and laying before Parliament.
	I will also move Amendment A298, which clarifies that Natural England may publish the scheme in such a manner as it considers appropriate. I fully accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, about wanting that to be seen as a way of widening access rather than it becoming less accessible. I agree with that, and will ensure that it is communicated to Natural England. However, my understanding is that the draft scheme was published on the internet and hard copies were made available on request. That does not seem to be a bad start. I know that I should not have mentioned the internet. I am obviously in danger of provoking one of your Lordships' usual debates on the matter. I take the point that we want these documents and the scheme to be accessible, and it is important that they are.
	On the other amendments in this group, Amendment A284, which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has spoken to, refers to "procedures and policies" rather than "approach". As the noble Lord said, he has tabled it as a probing amendment. We prefer the wording of the Bill to that of the noble Lord's, because his would take a rather prescriptive approach. He asked me what I expect to be in Natural England's scheme. We would expect the scheme to set out in some detail how the implementation process is expected to work, the key principles of the alignment of the route and how they will be applied to a number of coastal land covers and uses. The draft scheme itself gives a good indication of what we would expect the final scheme to cover. It gives an indication of the procedure that will be followed, and also a fuller explanation of the policy. It sets out a general approach, so it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to make the final decision, albeit—with the benefit of the government amendments—with an opportunity for scrutiny of the scheme as it is laid before Parliament.
	On Amendments A289, A299, A299A and A289ZA, the Secretary of State will approve the scheme only if he is satisfied that Natural England has clearly set out the approach it will take when discharging its coastal access duty. If the Secretary of State is not so satisfied, he will reject the scheme and give notice to Natural England, under subsection (2)(b), to prepare and submit a revised scheme and give Natural England his reasons for doing so. Where the Secretary of State has rejected a scheme, the current provisions in Clause 288 provide some flexibility for him to set a time for any revised scheme to be submitted. The Secretary of State may specify a timescale for the submission of a new scheme in the notice that he gives Natural England under Clause 288(2)(b), so the legislation is currently flexible enough to allow the Secretary of State to indicate the appropriate timescale for submitting a new scheme.
	Amendments A291, A293, A298 and A299A deal with the question of whether we have got it right with our use of the words "a" and "the". I have gone into this matter in great detail and have been convinced that the wording is correct. First, I reassure noble Lords that we are not talking about a whole series of different schemes; we are talking about one scheme. The point is that at the beginning, when Natural England starts to prepare a scheme, it is "a" scheme because the preparatory work is still being done. Once Natural England submits this scheme to the Secretary of State, it becomes "the" scheme. While I, too, queried it because it seems illogical, there is consistency and a reason for it.
	I move on to Amendments A294, A295 and A296 which adds a list. The scheme or revised scheme must be approved by the Secretary of State. In doing so he will take into account the extent and coverage of Natural England's consultation. Natural England will be required to consult on its proposed scheme before it submits it to the Secretary of State for his approval. The current provisions in subsection (6) of this clause already provide for Natural England to publish the scheme or revised scheme as soon as is reasonably practical after it is approved.
	On the question of giving reasons, if the Secretary of State has agreed to a scheme that has been proposed by Natural England, I am not sure—or certainly not convinced—that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to give reasons for approval. On the more substantive point of the Secretary of State rejecting a scheme, of course he would expect to say why it is rejected. There should be no doubt about that, although one would always hope that there had been a co-operative process so that it was unnecessary for such a scheme to be rejected. We must have the provision in case there is a problem, but I have no doubt that, if a scheme were to be rejected and the Secretary of State called—in the way that I have described—for a new scheme to be put forward, with an indicative timetable if necessary, Natural England would clearly need to know what was wrong with its original proposal.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord said that it would do for the scheme to be published on the internet, where people could get a copy if they wanted to. Have we reached the point where that is adequate? People might not know that it was on the internet at all.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I wish I had not mentioned that. The moment that I said it, I knew that noble Lords would challenge me on the point. I was only describing the practice of Natural England in relation to the draft scheme. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Baroness said. I agree with her. The implication of what she says is that not everyone uses the internet. I think I said, as I attempted to correct myself, that I fully accept the general point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that in moving this amendment I seek to ensure that these documents are accessible. It has to be left to Natural England to decide how that should be done but I am happy to make the House's sentiments clear to that body; namely, that the internet should not be the only way in which its documents should be made available and communicated.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the issue because the internet is still not a possibility in many rural areas. I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the point in my amendment on the use of "a" and "the". When we debated the Bill before the Easter Recess, I think he acknowledged that schemes would come in different pieces and that it would not be one—

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: You have to draw a distinction between the path itself and the coastal access scheme with which we are dealing in this part of the Bill. There is one scheme. Sections of the coastal access path will be dealt with in a phased timetable. Ultimately, we hope that it will all be joined up to become one coastal access path.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: That is a very important point. I, too, was somewhat confused because the practicality of the issue would involve it being dealt with in stages. Sections would be dealt with and presented to the Secretary of State. I assume that the Secretary of State would comment and give provisional approval subject to the overall scheme being ultimately presented. Indeed, one would not want to hold up the scheme for the sake of it not being completed.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I should make it clear that in Clause 288 we are talking about the scheme. The scheme sets the parameters and the context in which the coastal access path will be delivered. However, as we have already discussed, and because of the practicalities involved, the path itself will be delivered in phases. Initially, it will not be all joined up, but the ultimate aim is to have one path, all of which is joined up. However, all this will take place in the context of the scheme.

Lord Greaves: I thank the Minister for the detailed attention that he has given to these amendments. We will check his comments in Hansard. However, he said that if the Secretary of State rejected the scheme or sent it back to Natural England to be changed, he would give his reasons. At least one of these amendments probes whether the Secretary of State would publish his reasons when he sent the scheme back to Natural England.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It would be extraordinary if those reasons were not made public.

Lord Greaves: That is a satisfactory answer, but extraordinary things sometimes happen.
	When the draft scheme first came out it was fairly easy to track it down on the internet. However, when I saw it on the internet, I discovered that it was quite a big document and I did not have a colour printer at the time. I rang Natural England or, rather, the numbers that I could find on the website, and the people who were responsible for distributing Natural England's documents said that they had never heard of it. However, that was some time ago. The first we saw of the printed document, as opposed to what we printed out ourselves, was at the very useful briefing sessions that we had with the Minister and his Bill team. Comments were made then that these documents were rather difficult to get hold of and not very many had been printed. There is no doubt that there is nowadays a tendency to assume that everybody can get it off the internet and perhaps most people now can. However, if it is a big document in full colour and you do not have adequate broadband, it is almost impossible to get.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am happy to give the assurance that noble Lords want that it is very important that this scheme document receives wide circulation in different media. I am happy to give that guarantee from the Dispatch Box.

Lord Greaves: I am grateful for that assurance. The only other comment that I wanted to make was to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on the vital issue of "a" and "the". The Minister says that when Natural England starts to prepare a scheme, it is "a scheme". I understand that. When it submits it, it becomes "the scheme". The wording in the Bill follows that to some extent. It starts off in Clause 288(1) with preparing "a scheme". It goes on in Clause 288(2) to refer to "the scheme", which the Secretary of State may approve, with or without modifications, or reject. In Clause 288(4), which deals with revising it, it is "a scheme" again. It seems that at the revision stage it ought to be "the scheme", because it is "the scheme" that has previously been adopted.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not think that is right. While they are revising it, "the scheme" is still in operation. They are working on a revision and will then make proposals. The scheme then becomes the revised scheme when it goes forward. I am happy to look at this again, but I had a very long discussion on this point with officials this morning. They convinced me that we had got it right. However, I always like to look into these matters fully and if the noble Lord would like me to, I will have another look to make sure that we have got it right.

Lord Greaves: I was about say that, if the Minister is going to spend more time looking at the wording of the Bill, other parts are more important, because this will not make any difference to what happens in practice, however amusing we find the debate. I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment A284 withdrawn.
	Amendments 285 and 285A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendment A286 not moved.
	Amendment A286A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendments A287 to A289ZA not moved.
	Amendment A289ZB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendment A289A and A290 not moved.
	Amendment A290A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendment A291 not moved.
	Amendment A292
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	A292: Clause 288, page 175, line 21, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of the scheme approved under this section and, where that scheme is revised, a copy of the revised scheme."
	Amendment A292 agreed.
	Amendments A293 to A297 not moved.
	Amendment A298
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	A298: Clause 288, page 175, line 24, leave out "publish, as soon as reasonably practicable—" and insert ", as soon as reasonably practicable, publish in such manner as it considers appropriate—"
	Amendment A298 agreed.
	Amendment A298A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendments A299 to A300 not moved.
	Amendment A301
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	A301: Clause 288, page 175, line 34, at end insert ", carrying out any other research, or undertaking any consultations and discussions with any persons or authorities"

Lord Greaves: Amendment A301 is about the preparation of the reports that will consist of the large number of proposals for each part of the coast. They will have to be produced within the framework of what is laid down in the coastal access scheme, as the Minister recently explained.
	The Bill as it stands says that the preparation of a report cannot take place until the scheme has been approved, but Clause 288(9) says:
	"Nothing in subsection (8)"—
	which is the bar on preparing the report until the scheme has been approved—
	"prevents Natural England from surveying any land in connection with the preparation of such a report".
	The purpose of the amendment is to probe the meaning of the phrase, "surveying any land". For the purposes of this probing, our amendment adds to that phrase the words,
	"carrying out any other research, or undertaking any consultations and discussions with any persons or authorities".
	It seems to me that a broad definition of the words "surveying any land" would include carrying out any research off the land, which could be desk research, library research, or talking to anyone about it. Common sense would allow that to happen. Common sense also suggests that this kind of activity ought to be allowed in preparation for the first phase of coastal access reports, even if the coastal access scheme itself is still in the late stages of being produced and approved. That is the purpose of the amendment. I do not intend to speak to Amendment A322.
	Amendment A323 is to probe what happens in the preparation of a coastal access report if there is already an approved long-distance route on that section of coast. The amendment suggests:
	"If the report is in relation to a part of the English coast where there is already an approved long-distance route, Natural England must in preparing the report have regard to the existence of that route and all relevant circumstances relating to it".
	That applies in two places in particular. There may be others, but the two that I have identified are the south-west and north Yorkshire, where the Cleveland Way follows the coast of the North York Moors for quite a long distance. In those circumstances, what is the relationship between the existing long-distance route and the new coastal access long-distance route that will be produced in those areas? This is a probing amendment to seek an explanation of that.
	I do not understand what Amendment A351 means, and I do not understand why it is in this group; it has floated here somehow. I do not intend to speak to it. I beg to move Amendment A301.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I want to reinforce the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on Amendment A323. It would not be particularly useful to seek to reinvent the wheel where an existing long-distance path already had coastal designation. I am thinking particularly of the south-west path, which already exists. There will be enough work in hand dealing with the new areas. One would hope that the Minister would be able to encourage the thoughts that lie behind Amendment A323.

Lord Davies of Oldham: It is customary from the Dispatch Box to thank a noble Lord when he does not press amendments that he has tabled but, having burnt the midnight oil seeking to grasp the nature of the amendments and having produced some absolutely devastating responses, the noble Lord will recognise how mortified I am that we are not going to be able to discuss them today.

Lord Greaves: If the Minister is quite so devastated, I could bring them back on Report.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I should have resolved by now never to tempt providence, nor the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, from this Dispatch Box, so I shall resist. On Amendment A301, the provision in Clause 288(9) will enable Natural England to survey land in preparation for submitting a report before there is an approved scheme, so it can do some preparatory work in advance of the scheme being finalised and approved. Before preparing a report it will, of course, consult people, but those consultations must not pre-empt or prejudice the proper consultations that Natural England will be required to hold once the scheme has been approved. The noble Lord indicated that this might be a probing amendment, so I hope he will recognise that we have good reasons for drafting the Bill as we have.
	On Amendment A323, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that we are seeking to preserve the flexibility for Natural England to draw up a report for short sections of the route that do not amount to an extensive journey. In indicating that he is not now pressing Amendment A322, he, perhaps, accepts that. However, Natural England will need to take any previously approved long-distance route into account when it prepares its report; the burden of the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in this short debate was, I think, that there is no point in Natural England being involved in such additional work.
	Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will accept, first, that we consider we have examined the issues raised in his quite interesting and probing amendments. We are concerned that Natural England will be involved in developing its report through necessary preparation, which cannot be done without consultation, but that must not pre-empt the consultation that takes place once the scheme is approved. Secondly, I hope he will accept that Amendment A323 will not need to be in the Bill because, as it is drafted, Natural England will need to take account of any previously approved long-distance route. I think that was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.

Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister for his careful response. I want to make two points. On my point about surveying being read in a wider sense, I think the Minister said that nothing prevents Natural England speaking or discussing that with anybody, or doing any necessary research off the land itself, but that once the formal processes of investigating particular coastal parts are taking place, the consultations and discussions clearly have to take place under what is in the Bill; they will be legally necessary and cannot be pre-empted. If that is what the Minister said, then I thank him and am happy with that response.
	My other point is on the south-west coastal path. I get a general feeling from many noble Lords that everything is perfect with that path at the moment, but it is not. The south-west coastal path is a wonderful thing and most of us have benefited from it at various times; nevertheless, parts of it have significant diversions inland, which one hopes that the Bill will, in due course, be able to remedy when looking at the south-west. Having said that we should know that not everything is absolutely perfect with that path, wonderful thing though it is, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment A301 withdrawn.
	Amendment A302
	 Moved by Lord Tyler
	A302: Clause 288, page 175, line 35, at end insert—
	"(10) The scheme shall make provision for keeping dogs under close control when members of the public exercise the rights contained in this Act to access the land designated as the English coastal route under section 286 of this Act.
	(11) For the purpose of the scheme a dog is deemed to be kept under close control where the dog is in sight of the keeper, and the keeper is aware of the dog's actions, and can, where necessary, recall the dog so that it can return reliably and promptly to the keeper.
	(12) For the purpose of this section, "keeper" has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Animals Act 1971 (c. 22)."

Lord Tyler: In moving Amendment A302 I shall refer to Amendment A363, which relates to the same issue, and make a quick reference to the Conservative amendment in this group, Amendment A359C.
	In approaching this very important part of the coastal access scheme, I should put on record that I have no direct interest. I am not a dog owner. We all know a lot of dog owners; there may be many in the House who have exercised their dogs along some of the coastal footpaths, but I have not had the pleasure of doing so. I also put on record that I am not a member of or associated in any way with the Kennel Club. I say that although I have had some research undertaken by the Kennel Club for a particular reason. I understand from the club that an approach was made by departmental officials seeking the review and withdrawal of the amendments. That is rather surprising and worrying. If anyone should seek to withdraw my amendment, it should be me, not any outside organisation, which may or may not have provided information to enable me to move the amendment.
	Anyone who has any experience of the countryside and, particularly, of the wilder countryside, must be well aware that dogs can be a major problem. They can provide considerable anxiety to both those concerned about the conservation of wildlife and to livestock farmers, especially at lambing time. Of course, lambing takes place earlier in Cornwall than in anywhere else in the country because of our delightful climate, but everywhere in the country, lambing is a very important part of the seasonal experience of working farmers. Therefore, it is not surprising that the National Farmers' Union has expressed anxiety about the best way to deal with that potential problem. I cite the National Farmers' Union briefing to your Lordships' House:
	"We welcome the commitment for Defra and Natural England to carry out further work with stakeholders on the best way to deal with dog control, which recognises that there are some shared interests here for example between bird conservation and farming ... Conditions vary along the coast and appropriate dog management will need to reflect that. Accordingly we also hope that the Government will be pressed to agree that there is a compelling need for a communications strategy on the management of dogs in the wider countryside, not just in coastal areas, run by Natural England in conjunction with other stakeholders".
	In other words, even after the Bill passes from your Lordships' House, that is likely to be unfinished but important business. It is important not least because a great number of our fellow citizens are dog owners, who greatly benefit from the fact that, at the moment, they can exercise their dogs in a wide variety of locations. I understand that there are about 7.3 million pet dogs in the United Kingdom cared for an estimated by 15 million people. That is not a minority interest. Government statistics show that dog walkers represent a large cross-section of society. Between one quarter and one half of all walkers are accompanied by dogs; that is certainly true in respect of some parts of our coastline. It is also true that dog owners benefit to a considerable extent in health terms from exercising their dogs. There are also social benefits for many individuals, families and communities.
	Research shows that the biggest factor for owners choosing where to exercise their dogs is whether they can exercise them off-lead. If that is impossible locally, more than 40 per cent will drive somewhere else. They will take their car to go somewhere else. Obviously, that is not of great benefit to the environment. The Defra guidance accompanying the existing legislation states that local authorities should show that dog control orders are
	"a necessary and proportionate response to problems caused by the activities of dogs and those in charge of them",
	and to,
	"balance the interest of those in charge of dogs against the interests of those affected by the activities of dogs".
	In practice, that has been largely ignored by many local authorities when they have taken a more restrictive approach. I understand that, although local authorities are bound under existing legislation to notify Natural England of any proposed dog control orders on access to land, very few appear to have done so. The Kennel Club tells me that, to date, at least 120 councils have implemented dog control orders, sometimes issuing as many as 100 orders in one local area. The Minister may be able to tell us whether, on that scale of orders, notification has been made to Natural England.
	Therefore, in Amendment A302, we have designed a very specific, purpose-built provision for ensuring that dog owners exercising on the coastal access path do so in the most responsible way, taking account of the anxieties to which I referred earlier. We do not believe that the alternative, which appears in the Bill at the moment and to which we give attention in Amendment A363, which is in the form of amendments to the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, is appropriate, for the reasons I have given. It would seem to be using a sledgehammer to crack a really insubstantial nut.
	In my view, and I hope in the view of the Committee, it is much more appropriate to make specified, purpose-built, purpose-made provisions, along the lines of Amendment A302. We believe that is more effective and that it is in a more appropriate place than Amendment A359C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach. We believe that laying full responsibility on dog owners to act really responsibly on the coastal footpath is the best way to ensure that they do so. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: Speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lord Taylor, I believe it is quite a good moment for the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, to have brought this issue before the Committee, though I cannot say I agree with him in all his reasoning. One of the differences between the Government's proposals under this part of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill and its forerunner, the CROW Act, is that a great many of its regulations are to be implemented by secondary legislation, rather than being written on the face of the Bill. At present, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is placed within the main text of the Bill. I should have thought it more appropriate to table it as an amendment to Schedule 2 to the CROW Act, where we have attempted to place our Amendment A359C.
	This amendment does reflect concerns of the NFU and we shall look carefully to see whether the noble Lord's proposals, if placed in Schedule 2, would be sufficient to allay our concerns. I do agree that this phraseology would need to be amended, as this schedule is entitled "Restrictions to be observed by persons exercising the right of access". A new paragraph for coastal land could be inserted to include the provisions proposed by the noble Lord under Amendment A302, and this would be more consistent with the CROW Act approach. I presume that this should not provide too many difficulties for the Government, as the noble Lord's proposals almost exactly mirror those contained in paragraph 26 of the briefing on the proposed statutory instrument, which the Minister has so kindly sent us.
	The withdrawal of the provision prohibiting access for dogs in the nesting season, contained in the proposed statutory instrument, in order to limit them to specific sites is an interesting suggestion, but, as there are likely to be more species of ground-nesting birds in the coastal area than in the mountains and on moor land, one does wonder who will have the jobs of designating to which areas the seasonal restrictions will apply.
	I listened with some care to what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said about his Amendment A363, which at first struck me as being a bit too draconian. I was interested to hear what he said about the different approach of different local authorities to the use of these orders, but I should have thought that to remove the power entirely presumes that local authorities are likely to apply provisions of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act without good reason. That power, it seems to me, would be extremely important at times if there were outbreaks of zoonosis diseases to which dogs could contribute in a local area, such as E. coli, hydatid disease or salmonella. I expect that if rabies occurred, other legislation could be brought in. There is at least a sanction on local authorities, and perhaps the one to which the noble Lord referred should be aware that, if it is too draconian, it can be unelected. I hope that the Minister will address both the substance of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the question of trying to maintain consistency with the CROW Act.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I see what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is getting at. This is an important example of the benefit that would ensue if we were assured that local authorities were going to be involved in this whole business. This is a very sensitive political issue, and local councillors are very used to discussing with the public what their dogs can and cannot do. I should have thought that that would solve the problem.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: The question of dogs is very important for the practical success of this part of the Bill. Leaving aside the vexed question of privacy, on the whole, responsible public access to land does not interfere with the normal practical use of that land. There are exceptions to that, the most obvious being where animals other than humans are involved; for example, where there is livestock such as sheep and cattle and gates are left open, and in relation to habitat management for sensitive species, such as ground-nesting birds, mentioned by the noble Duke. Game and wildlife management generally is another example, and again, as the noble Duke said, wildlife is synonymous in most people's minds with the coastal strip.
	However, these problems are particularly exacerbated when you come to the question of dogs. I declare an interest as a dog owner and as someone who, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has walked his dog along the south-west coast path in all four counties. I believe that we have to make coastal access a practical success. Therefore, although I sympathise with people who wish to walk their dogs, we have to make certain that we get this part of the Bill absolutely correct.
	Whatever role I had in the implementation of the CROW Act, it was my publicly declared intent that in six, seven or eight years' time people would look back and say, "I wonder what all the fuss was about". On the whole, with one or two exceptions, after some teething problems I believe that that is probably the case. I hope that in a few years' time people, especially landowners and farmers, will also be able to look back and say, "This coastal access legislation has not made much difference to the management of my bit of land. It has given huge enjoyment to the public. It has also given us or our neighbours some benefit from the money that the visitors bring, and there have been no real problems". However, for them to say that, we have to deal with the question of dogs. I am very glad that the Government have acknowledged that and are intending to bring forward their own proposals.
	Amendment A302 is a very good first attempt but I do not know whether any noble Lords have ever tried to remonstrate with someone whose dog is running amok on a headland which has been specially sown for ground-nesting birds. I think they would have found that the words "close control" or "promptly", when referring to bringing the dog back promptly to the owner, mean very different things to different people. As I said, the amendment is a very good first attempt but we have to try to improve on it. I cannot claim any magical solution to getting the balance right on this difficult question but I should be very happy to volunteer whatever experience I have had in order to try to find a practical and workable solution to this problem.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for his interesting amendments. He has introduced a very important debate on the question of dogs. I agree that, whatever the outcome of our debates, it will be important that Natural England has an effective communicating strategy for dog owners, and I shall certainly take that back.
	May I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that his points about practical success are very important? I shall come on to the Government's approach to making changes in relation to CROW. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, was right when she said that, for a lot of this, we shall depend on local authorities and the practical experience they can bring, which is why I am a little resistant to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that we take the dog control order power away from local authorities. They can bring a lot of good common sense to what is sometimes a difficult matter, to ensure that there is an appropriate balance of interests.
	Under the CROW Act, which will deliver the right of access to coastal land, a number of general restrictions have to be observed by persons exercising their right of access. These are set out in Schedule 2 to the Act, including, in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, particular restrictions on the control of dogs. Amendment A302, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, would require the Natural England scheme to make provision for keeping dogs under close control. It would include within the Bill a description of what would be expected of any person in close control of a dog. Amendment A359C, proposed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, would mean that a new paragraph might be inserted into Schedule 2 to the CROW Act to require a person to keep a dog under effective control.
	I am sympathetic to the general principles expressed in both these amendments. I fully recognise the importance to land managers, to those accompanied by a dog, to other users and to responsible organisations such as the Kennel Club and the RSPB of a common understanding of the sorts of behaviour we should expect from a person in charge of a dog. However, we doubt that it is appropriate for the Bill to prescribe those details so closely regarding what the scheme should include. It is clear that the issue of dogs is an important one, it deserves some further detailed consultation and it is our view that this is best dealt with under the Section 3A order under CROW.
	Noble Lords have referred already to the recently published paper which indicates the sort of changes we might propose to make to Schedule 2 to the CROW Act in the new Section 3A order. In one sense, it underpins the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, when he wishes us to be as practical as possible. Our argument is that using this mechanism and having the flexibility of secondary legislation will allow us to be flexible and practical in the light of circumstances.
	On the very interesting point raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, concerning dogs to be kept on a lead during the nesting season, the CROW restriction related particularly to ground-nesting birds, which is relevant to moorland and heath-land. On the coast, there are many wildlife concerns—winter roosting is very important in some cases—so we need greater flexibility than CROW allows by using specific restrictions on dogs as appropriate. He then asks who is going to be able to provide the advice. My first port of call would be for the relevant local authorities to be able to do this, in consultation with all concerned interests. However, this is a consultation and if the noble Duke has specific ideas about this, I would be very happy to ensure that they are considered.
	In this draft consultation, we have outlined our intention to include measures relating to restrictions on dogs and we think there should be a general restriction requiring a dog to be kept under effective control. By effective control, we propose that the keeper of a dog should keep it on relevant access land, and either keep it on a lead or keep it in sight and remain aware of its actions. A person should have reason to be confident that his or her dog will return reliably and promptly on command. We do not propose to make any change to the current position on open country that a person should keep his dog on a short lead. We mean by that a lead of not more than two metres in the vicinity of livestock and with any other relevant restrictions made under Chapter II of the CROW Act.
	I hope noble Lords will feel that I have responded positively to this part of the debate. There will be further work and detailed consultation leading to an order being made—

The Duke of Montrose: Perhaps the noble Lord will respond to my question. Would it not be better for dog owners if the legislation on terms of access for dogs in the countryside and in the marine coastal area were in the same place; namely, Schedule 2 to the CROW Act, if it is amended? He has just given a fairly clear indication of what that might be. To have it all in the one place in legislation would simplify things for those who are trying to understand what they are supposed to do.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I agree with that, although I suppose the issue we face is that we are bringing a Bill before Parliament which partly uses the CROW Act as the way in which the coastal access path can be provided. Because of that, some of the provisions of this Bill seek to amend the CROW Act. We are also taking advantage of the order-making power in the CROW Act to deal with dogs. I fully accept the substance of the noble Duke's point. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, gave some quite extraordinary statistics. I think he referred to 7.5 million dogs and 15 million dog owners or persons with an interest in dogs, although I am puzzled about how he reached that statistic. None the less, the number is impressive.
	Clearly, very few dog owners will read the legislation, but it is clear that they need to understand what they are expected to do. On that basis I will take back the point raised by the noble Duke and ensure that, as part of the work of Natural England taking this forward, it gives great consideration to and works with the relevant bodies, such as the Kennel Club, to ensure that dog owners can be informed of the requirements in as straightforward a way as possible.
	Let me turn to dog control orders under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, thought that these proposals would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. However, in the light of our consensus about the importance of local authorities in this area, because they are used to exercising dog control orders it is appropriate for them to be able to use those orders along the English coastal route. Of course, they can be made only following a suitable consultation process. The Dog Control Orders (Procedures) Regulations 2006 already place additional requirements for consultation on any proposal to make an order that would affect access land. I do not believe that local authorities would use the powers to apply dog control orders lightly, so we would prefer to remain with this locally based decision-making process. On the noble Lord's question about notifications to Natural England, in the time I have had we have not been able to find that information. But, on that, I would be very happy to talk to Natural England and drop him a line about it. He is absolutely right that it would be very helpful for Natural England to have that information, particularly about the coastal access path. We are all clear that local authorities have a very important role to play in the preparatory stages of the coastal access path, so information about dogs is very important for a successful conclusion.
	I take full responsibility for any discussions that my officials may have had with the Kennel Club. When we talk to groups such as that, we seek to discover the meaning of the amendment so that we can respond as constructively as possible. That was my intention, but if it did not happen quite in that way, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and to the Committee.

Lord Tyler: I am grateful to the Minister for that full response. I should perhaps put on the record the fact that there are 7.3 million dogs, which are cared for by an estimated 15 million people. Many of us will be aware that the family dog may be thought to be the property of several individuals. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, is in proud possession of one or more dogs and whether they belong only to him or whether his family also takes an interest. That may be the reason for the discrepancy.
	It has been a helpful and useful debate, not least because we have been able to probe in rather more detail the Government's long-term intentions. I hope that in so doing we may have given some guidance to stakeholders on all sides of this potential problem on the best way to proceed. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, kindly said that my amendment was a very good first attempt. I have made several attempts, and I will not pretend that the amendment is as good as all that, but given the way in which the Minister responded, it is clearly along the right sort of lines.
	I in no way deprecate the laying of responsibility on local authorities, but it is right and proper that we should think carefully about the rather mixed experience with local authorities and the way in which they have or have not consulted on the use of dog control orders and how they have imposed them—in some areas on a very large scale, in other areas in a rather more limited way. It will be important for those who want to use a national coastal path, which after all is the objective, that there is some consistency from area to area and that it is compatible with the important needs of livestock husbandry and with the conservation of the environment and wildlife, which is also very important.
	The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, had a point when he said that it was confusing now to have several places where a dog owner might have to go to find the statutory obligation which he or she is taking upon himself or herself. There are about three statutes, including the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act, which governs control areas, as well as the CROW Act and what we hope will very soon be the Marine and Coastal Access Act. Thereafter there will be secondary legislation, as has already been made clear, so this is a bit of a minefield for anyone who wants to understand precisely what is involved. However, I understand what the Minister said, and I certainly appreciate the fact that there is a limit to how precise we need to be in the coastal access scheme instruction in the Bill and how far we will get with that.
	Finally, I will be parochial for a second and talk about nesting birds. Those in your Lordships' House who follow the excellent television series "Doc Martin" will have seen the Cornish choughs, which are very carefully protected. They are the most marvellous birds and a symbol of Cornwall, and they featured very strongly in the last episode that I saw. Indeed, it looked as though their nest had been blown up. I have a concern about Cornwall and nesting birds, particularly the Cornish choughs. They should be protected from all forms of disturbance, not least from dogs. It will be a very difficult balancing act, and I wish the Minister well. I shall read Hansard with care to see what he said, but I think he goes a very long way to meet the concerns that many of us have already expressed. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment A302 withdrawn.
	Clause 288, as amended, agreed.
	Clause 289 : Review of the coastal access scheme
	Amendment 303 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendment A304
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	A304: Clause 289, page 175, line 40, leave out "At least one" and insert "The first"

Lord Greaves: We managed to get through dogs in regard to this Bill in half an hour. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who was in his place listening but has now left, will no doubt have been recollecting that in the CROW Bill nine years ago it took us something like a day and a half to dispose of dogs, so perhaps progress is being made.
	Amendments A304 to A306 in this group are about the review of the national coastal access scheme. Also in this group are two Conservative amendments about the slightly different issue of the review of proposals reports, but it is all about review. I do not think this will take us half an hour.
	Amendment A304 suggests that the wording "at least one" in relation to a requirement for the first review of the national coastal access scheme should simply be "the first". It may be a mere point about wording but "at least one" suggests that within the first three years there might be more than one review and that would be over the top, to put it mildly.
	Amendment A305 changes three to five, suggesting that three years is not long enough to have a sensible review about how this scheme is working. The review would presumably have to start before the end of those three years, which is not going to leave a lot of time for a sensible review. Clearly at some stage a comprehensive and sensible review has to take place. In many ways it will be the outcomes which show whether the scheme is working in the form of stretches of coast open to access through new paths and access land down to the sea which did not exist before. In order to review whether these are working sensibly, you need experience of using the path and the access land. I am not sure that within three years of approval of the scheme there will be a lot of that experience. I will refer to that in a minute.
	Amendment A306 suggests that one of the times when a fundamental review has to take place is after the English coastal route has been completed. That will be a significant and iconic moment and I hope we all live to see it. Once it happens, there will have to be a fundamental review of the scheme because then revisions and proposals for amendments will come in and the regime will have changed.
	These amendments are all about the timetable and again I refer to this extremely useful supplementary information from Natural England on coastal access published last December. On page 18, the document sets out the timescale that Natural England would like to see as far as the new coastal access provisions are concerned. Natural England thinks that the legislative process may conclude in 2010 and that it may get formal approval of the scheme in 2010, which obviously is possible although it means everyone has to get their skates on. By 2016, it aims to have an approved alignment for the whole of the English coast. That is ambitious, but it is possible. However, it does not mean that the scheme will have come into effect as far as people using it are concerned. Once the scheme in particular areas has been approved, it has to be put into effect, and that will take some time. It is not a question of a proposal report for a particular section of coast being approved and everyone then being able to go and take advantage. There is going to have to be work on the ground in some areas, and some will require more work than others. In places where there is no access at all, the route will have to be physically created on the ground. That will take time.
	Natural England is suggesting another two years, until 2018, before that can happen, and then it is sensibly putting in two years' contingency for potential delays and rescheduling. If there is to be an appeal or review system, which so far in the Bill there is not, that will inevitably cause more delays. Natural England says that by 2020 it aims to have completed the establishment of the new access and commencement of the new access rights, which requires both the proposal for a particular piece of coast to be approved and any necessary ground work to have been carried out.
	That timetable is not over-pessimistic; indeed, if everything is in place by 2020, everyone will be doing very well. Having the first review of the scheme after three years, when very few new parts of the coast will have been opened up, is premature. It may be possible, but five years is more realistic. I do not want to slow anything down, but we have to be realistic about what is going to happen and not put a lot of time and effort into reviewing things in a legalistic or bureaucratic way when the effort ought to be put into implementing the scheme on the ground. I beg to move.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I think all parties are agreed that it is important to have a review of the coastal access scheme. I think it is safe to say that we are all in agreement about the importance of a review as soon as possible, in order to assess whether the scheme is functioning and to be able to improve it where it is not.
	The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, are therefore uncontroversial, in that he appears to be highlighting the need for such a review and the necessity of it being carried out as soon as practicable. We do not wish to have a review too early and so risk assessing the success of the coastal access scheme on inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information. Thus, increasing the time period available to five years, and making sure that a review is carried out when practicable after completion of the route, seems sensible.
	Nevertheless, it is also important to try to carry out a review as soon as possible. That may mean that the scheme has not had time to settle, but it may also be useful for revealing important information. In this way, if there are teething difficulties they can be discovered and dealt with early on, which may reduce problems later. I am therefore cautious about extending my full support to an increase in the number of years before a review has to take place.
	I support Amendment A306, however. It is important that the Bill specifies that if the route takes longer to implement than the period allocated for the first review, a further review must take place after the route is completed. As the Bill stands, a review is required after a specific period of time. It surely makes more sense also to link it to progress of the project that it is supposed to be monitoring.
	Our amendment ensures that regular reviews of the coastal access report must be made. Moreover, by allowing interested parties to request a report it ensures transparency while making certain that problems are addressed. Amendment A357B develops this further and states that a review may be requested because of proposed or actual changes in land use as regards directions under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the CROW Act for the exclusion or restriction of access. This is important because it means that changes will be properly assessed and scrutinised. Therefore, together our two amendments cover both bases. They allow for both continuous review and also for specific requests by interested parties, if the situation remains the same or if changes occur. This means that it should be possible for all problems to be identified and solutions to be found. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: I rise to speak to Amendment A357B. I have already declared my interest for the Committee stage of this Bill but if I was asked to choose a theme that I felt I most represented in this House it would probably be a vibrant rural economy. It is for that reason that I am generally in favour of access to the countryside, which brings billions of pounds every year into the rural economy. This was why foot and mouth was so disastrous. Although it was a tragedy for farmers, it was much more of a tragedy for those people and those businesses dependent upon visitors. It was extraordinary how wide that particular category turned out to be.
	As many of your Lordships know, farming has been through a tough time in the last 10 or 15 years. Every Minister of agriculture, every Secretary of State of Defra, and even myself in a lesser capacity, during those years have been encouraging farmers to look hard at their assets and to see how else they might be able to use them to create an income or, better still, to create employment in the countryside. As ever, the key to a healthy rural economy is diversity, flexibility and continuous response to the market place or even to government signals. Amendment A357B is aimed at catering for this.
	The Government have already virtually accepted this amendment. During our last session when we were discussing possible future port expansion, the Minister indicated that flexibility should be the name of the game and that when, and only when, a development or change of use was being proposed by a landowner, Natural England should look at its route to see what it could do and then change the route to safely accommodate that development. The Minister made the point that this would happen when the development was needed rather than at any time before; in other words, keeping the route flexible.
	I cannot see that there is any difference between a landowner, a developer who is a port authority, a hotelier or any other rural businessman, or even a farmer. Any proposed development will be subject to the planning process which will ensure that the development is appropriate. Owing to the mind-numbingly lengthy process that all planning applications go through, it will also give all parties months or possibly even years to set out sensible alternative solutions. However, the danger here—this is my main point—is that the current, in other words the first, coastal route, could easily be given a sacrosanct status in the minds of the planners, and the proposed development will be forced to accommodate the existing route, along with being forced to accommodate bats and badgers and great-crested newts. What should happen is that the coastal route should be adjusted to accommodate the development. Proposed land-use changes must be looked at with fresh, non-partisan eyes, without any prejudgment. That is why Amendment A357B is so important.

Baroness Hamwee: I have learnt that in your Lordships' House one will not be frowned on too much if one asks what might be a stupid question, because if stupid questions are not asked during debates on legislation, it may turn out after it is enforced that they were not so stupid.
	I shall not be afraid, therefore, to raise a point not about timing but about the scope of Clause 289. A distinction has been made in the debate between the scheme and the route but, in the way that this clause has been discussed and the issues raised, it seems that the principles, which I suppose are the scheme, and the route, which is the implementation of the scheme, will be the subject of review. My noble friend expressed that as,
	"a review about how this scheme is working".
	My question is therefore whether the precise distinction between the scheme and the route is correct in the sense in which the review is framed.

Baroness Byford: Briefly, I support my noble friend's Amendment A357B on changes in land use. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is right that farmers, landowners and others continuously look to develop their land to bring in additional income. I would cite another example. Last week we stayed at the Nare Hotel, near Veryan, which stands on the cliff over a bay. There are immense problems there due to erosion. A path used to go in front of the hotel but it has been closed due to erosion. Another route has been introduced which goes round the back. That sort of action is common sense and presumably there will be no difficulty with it. While staying there we also discussed caravan sites in that area and in others around the country. Presumably the Bill will not mean that rights of way will go through the middle of those—or will they? So far, we have talked about land use in the accepted sense of farming or conservation of wild birds. In the business sense, however, I wonder what the Government's thinking on this issue is. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, also rightly says that we need to think about planning for the future rather than for an aspect of the past. However, as I highlighted, one pathway which was a right of way could not continue as such because of erosion. Could that affect other development decisions in coastal areas where a coastal path might be considered for access? I support the amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate for the extent to which it has probed how Natural England will review aspects of the scheme. Clause 289 enables Natural England to make any necessary improvements or additions to the approved scheme in the light of experience on the ground following implementation of the new rights.
	I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I note that rather than saying, "What we want, we want it now", he was going for a longer period than the Government are proposing on review. We suggest within three years. He has taken a somewhat unexpected position but I have listened carefully to what he had to say. However, he must also have taken into account the Select Committee in the other place. It thought that the review ought to take place within one year of establishment work starting on the ground. We are not saying one year. I listened to what the noble Lord has said and I recognise the validity of his points. We need to be able to look at the picture that will develop. However, I assure him that, with Members in the other place taking the view that this could be reassessed very rapidly indeed, if the Government take the position of three years and he takes the position of five years, it looks as though the Government have got it just about right.
	I therefore want the noble Lord to consider that important representation from the other place before we finish considering the Bill. It was their view, so he must recognise that, for some, rapid assessment of the position is an important dimension. We take into account all the points that have been made in this debate. We need Natural England to be in a position to learn significant lessons which can be applied in implementing the programme. A review that takes place within three years is both entirely practicable and entirely reasonable.
	Amendment A306 would have the effect of requiring Natural England to undertake a review of the scheme as soon as practicable following the completion of the English coastal route. I categorically assure the Committee that, once the coastal route has been completed, both the Government and Natural England will want to review the scheme and the programme of implementation. Noble Lords are pushing not only at an open door but at a door that is firmly affixed in that position, because we recognise that it will be necessary to look at the scheme at that time. That is why, although I entirely accept the sentiment that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, expressed with regard to Amendment A306, it is unnecessary to put it in the Bill. Any such review will, of course, accord with the principle of sound management within the Government and Natural England. Natural England will in due course report to Parliament on its progress after 10 years. We have therefore placed the necessary obligations on Natural England in the Bill. I give certainty about the review, which is what this amendment seeks.
	I recognise the reasoning behind Amendment A353, which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, tabled. It would place on Natural England a new duty to review a coastal access report at specified times and, in certain circumstances, at the request of a person with a relevant interest in the land. It is unnecessary to add a new requirement on Natural England to review a coastal access report made under Section 51. The problem with such a review is that it might lead to a large number of requests being made to Natural England, placing on it an entirely unfair burden.
	That is also the problem with Amendment A357B. After all, it means that any person with a relevant interest in land could trigger a review on certain grounds. I emphasise that, of course, Natural England is already able to review a report if it thinks that it is necessary. Provisions in the 1949 Act and in the Bill envisage that Natural England will do this of its own volition. Therefore, it is unnecessary for us to accept the two amendments. Nor is it appropriate or necessary to involve the Planning Inspectorate. Chapter 2 of the CROW Act contains existing mechanisms for a landowner to apply for new restrictions and exclusions for certain reasons. The existing rights of a landowner in those terms will stay in place for the coastal margin, with certain modifications to take account of the coastal situation.
	There is no need for an additional review of exclusions and directions to be put in place. However, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said in support of the amendment, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and, of course, to what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said. We will consider further whether there are circumstances in which Natural England should be required to review the proposals. For instance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, indicated, there might be changes to a route, or it might be blocked because land becomes excepted from the right of access, or other difficulties might arise. I accept entirely the point that she made about those circumstances. I think that was also the burden of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. We will consider that matter further. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raises a significant point, for which he has received support in several parts of the Committee. I hope that I have convinced the Committee that we have considered these issues. We are not in any way expressing a position in the Bill that greatly diverges from the points made this afternoon except with regard to the three-year period. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to bear in mind the point that I made on that issue.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord sits down, he gave a rather encouraging response on Amendments A353 and A357B. However, I beseech him to appreciate the fact that people enjoy walking through land which is flourishing and is having money spent on it to keep it attractive. If a landowner cannot make his place pay, it becomes derelict. Often the fences and the walls will tumble down. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, noted the importance of being able to make a place pay in order to keep it attractive. It is not just a matter of balancing the interests of land managers who want to make a bit of money and the people who want to walk through land and enjoy it. One cannot always freeze land in its existing state and keep it attractive. It is important to have flexibility so that land managers can, if necessary, change what they do with the land in order to keep it attractive. I hope that the noble Lord will take that point on board.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I have not the slightest hesitation in taking that point on board. If I sat down before the noble Baroness expressed it, I sat down too quickly. I am very glad that she has done so. It is an important point. We all know that the attractiveness of a coastal path is very much measured in terms of the perspective of the countryside through which it passes and that of the sea. We have all experienced paths that pass through arid environments. I have just been walking in southern Sicily. Despite its mature and significant economy, Sicily is in one of the poorer areas of Europe. We all know about the problems connected with the Sicilian economy. One is all too well aware that dereliction and underinvestment can detract from one's appreciation of the countryside. I accept the point that the noble Baroness made and I hope she will recognise that we think we have the necessary provisions to guarantee that that point is met.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: This is an encouraging set of amendments. They do not necessarily have all that much in common with the exception of review. However, the review of the scheme and the review of the report comprise two entirely different sections of the Bill. I am grateful for noble Lords' support for the measure and for the contributions from my noble friends Lady Byford and Lady Carnegy and from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I am particularly pleased that the Minister has responded to those contributions. The only thing that I will caution him on is the maxim that the Government must be right when they find themselves in the middle of two conflicting points of view. There is a once-great political party, of which neither he nor I is a member, that has made a political living out of being in the middle of the road, to perhaps less effect than if it had been able to stake a position in a more positive way. I say to noble Lords, you are not always right when you are in the middle. However, I am very grateful for the Minister's response.

Lord Greaves: I have always believed that, in politics, if you stand in the middle of the road you get run over. That is why it has never been my political position. You might keep out of the gutter, but there is no point if you are then run over. When I look at the political scene nowadays, wherever the Liberal Democrats stand, it is not in the middle of the road, and it is not half way between two right-wing parties. However, I will not pursue that further as we are discussing one of the rare Bills where I am willing to heap quite a lot of praise on the Government for what they are doing and trying to do. I will not be provocative any longer.
	When I moved the amendment, I said that the debate would not take as long as that on dogs, and I was wrong; we are now beating dogs, and I wonder why. I thought that I was moving some probing amendments. The problem with probing is that sometimes you find that, in the area you are probing, the Government have got it wrong. That is the case in this instance and I will explain why.
	The Minister said that the Commons EFRA committee had said that it wanted a review within one year of the establishment of rights on the ground. That seems a tenable position. The Government might come back and reword this so that the review of the national scheme takes place after a year or two years, or whatever is thought to be the appropriate period of time following the establishment of a new coastal path and new coastal access rights in the first tranche—I am trying to stop using the word, but will use it now—of the scheme. However, that is not what the Bill says. It says clearly that at least one review—which I suggest should be the first review, but heavens, perhaps there will be more—
	"must be completed within the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which a scheme is first approved".
	How long will the review take? Will is be a year? Will it be six months? Certainly it must be completed less than three years after the day on which a scheme is first approved. The question that I asked when I moved the amendment was: do the Government believe that this review should take place in the light of experience on the ground? It seems—this is the point that my noble friend Lady Hamwee made—that it is not a review of a national scheme in a vacuum, but a review of the effects of that scheme as implemented.
	So how long will it take? I do not want to slow things down at all. I particularly do not want to slow down the implementation of the new coastal access rights. I refer again to the very useful coastal access draft scheme that Natural England has published. I have here one of the rare glossy coloured versions. Section 3.1 on page 8 sets out the implementation process. There is a very useful chart entitled, "Overview of the implementation process". Stage 1 is "Collection and analysis of relevant information"; stage 2 is "Walking the course"; stage 3 is "Draft proposals"; stage 4 is "Consultation on draft proposals"; and stage 5 is "Final report". That is the report that goes to the Secretary of State. Putting aside any new appeal or review system that might be added to the Bill as it goes through Parliament, there is still the opportunity to make representations, at stage 6. Stage 7 is "Submission to Secretary of State", and stage 8 is "Preparation and commencement of rights".
	The final report is dealt with at stage 5. I quote paragraph 3.1.7, because it is important. It states:
	"We estimate that it will take 2 to 2 1/2 years to prepare a final report for submission to the Secretary of State (stages 1 to 7). Following the Secretary of State's decision, we estimate that it will take a further six to eighteen months for establishment works before the access rights can commence ... These are early estimates which we will test and refine as we develop our operational plan".
	I suggest that the timetable is likely to stretch if, as seems likely, some rather more comprehensive appeal or review systems and rights are inserted as the Bill goes through Parliament.
	That means that if a series of pieces of coastline are chosen for implementation immediately after the scheme is approved, it will be two to two and a half years before any of them get to the Secretary of State and another six to 18 months for establishment works to commence. That means that it will be two and a half to four years from the approval of the national scheme before anything happens on the ground. There is no point in reviewing what has happened on the ground until there is some experience of how it is working, so I would add another year to that. We are then saying that it would be three and a half to five years before anything is worth reviewing and before there is anything on the ground to review that has been in operation for a reasonable period of time; say, 12 months. That brings us to five years.
	Putting in legislation that the review has to be completed within three years is a guarantee that there will be nothing on the ground to look at and to use as experience while that review is taking place and when it is finished. That seems to be the incontrovertible arithmetic of what is written down here. The Government have got it wrong, and they ought to go away and look at it again and go back to what the EFRA Committee in the House of Commons said, which was 12 months after implementation on the ground. If everything speeds up, and the draft forecasts from Natural England turn out to be wrong and it can all be done a lot quicker, if you tie it to implementation on the ground, it does not matter because, however long or short a time it takes, you have a sensible system. At the moment, as it is set out in the Bill, I do not think that it is a sensible system, and I ask the Government to look at this again.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I have listened to the noble Lord's arithmetic, and can say that we will consider this matter because, after all, he is suggesting that this framework may prove to be more realistic as regards the operation of Natural England. The whole Committee will want things to move as rapidly as possible, as will the general public and all those who support the concept of the path, which has a great deal of support indeed. The noble Lord has made a significant point about why he thinks that five years is more realistic, and I will look at that and consider it further.

Lord Greaves: I am grateful for that, and I hope that they will also look at adopting the EFRA proposal rather than the more rigid one, as it is flexible and more sensible. As we can have some discussion about this before another stage, I am grateful for what the Minister said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment A304 withdrawn.
	Amendments A305 and A306 not moved.
	Clause 289 agreed.
	Clause 290 : The English coast
	Amendment A307
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	A307: Clause 290, page 176, line 5, after "including" insert—
	"(a) the Isle of Wight,
	(b) Lundy Island, and
	(c) "

Lord Greaves: I hope that this will not take as long as the debate on dogs did, or we will be here all night—although I remember discussing dogs in the CROW Bill at about three o'clock in the morning. People said that we were barking mad. In moving Amendment A307, I shall speak to Amendments A308 to A312 inclusive. This group is about islands, and partly puts the point that the two large islands, the Isle of Wight and Lundy Island, really ought to be in anyway because it is absolutely clear that they are large enough to have a reasonable coast around them. In the case of Lundy Island, a wonderful place, there is no problem at all about access to the coast. As of now, that takes place through those hardy bands of people who go there on their holidays. The Isle of Wight is slightly more complicated, but has some good coastal walking. They ought to be specified in the Bill, in our view, which is what Amendment A307 does.
	Amendment A308 probes the question of excluded islands, a concept that the Bill sets out in Clause 290(2) and (3). Subsection (2) says that,
	"An island is "excluded""—
	and, therefore, not included in the coastal access rights—
	"if it is neither ... an accessible island, nor ... an island specified by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of this paragraph".
	Amendment A308 probes what that means; what criteria will the Secretary of State use to specify an island? Which islands are likely to be specified and which are not?
	Amendment A309 addresses a slightly different issue. It would specify that an island will not be excluded if it can be reached by ferry. Amendment A310 does the same thing a different way round, saying that it is accessible if you can,
	"travel to it by ferry".
	The logic there is that when the coastal path comes to estuaries, ferries are counted as part of it if that is the sensible and appropriate thing there. It is not clear why that should not be the case for islands, so the amendment is to probe that issue.
	Amendment A311 would leave out the word "long-distance" in the part of the Bill that refers to islands being accessible if there could possibly be,
	"one or more long-distance routes along its length".
	The problem is that those may be quite small islands, where the word "long-distance" is inappropriate. What is "long-distance" in this context? In the context of the 1949 Act, it is defined as a long-distance route—not through a particular length but by definition. If the Cleveland way, the Pennine way and the south-west coastal path are said to be long-distance routes, that is defined under the Act, so that is what it means there. Here, however, I think that "long-distance" is being used differently, to mean a long distance. There will be many islands where people will argue that you cannot have a long-distance walk, unless you go round and round umpteen times, so the word is not appropriate. There may well also be an island where, although its coast is a relatively short distance, however that is defined, it is nevertheless sensible to include it in part of the long-distance coastal route as an optional diversion. The word "long-distance", then, appears problematic and the purpose of the amendment is to probe that.
	Finally, Amendment A312 is on the same issue about islands; it would leave out "an extensive", so it is the same as the long-distance point. These amendments are all about islands; some are, quite clearly, insignificant; some ought to be excluded, but some clearly ought to be included. Our purpose here is to find out the Government's thinking on which ought to be included, and on what basis. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord referred somewhat casually to the thought that Lundy Island, because it is a wonderful place, should be included in all of this. I have to declare an interest, in that Lundy Island is run by the Landmark Trust, which was founded by my late brother-in-law and my sister. That island is hugely attractive, as the noble Lord said, and people love to go there—but they do that because it is as it is. I would have thought the last thing they would want is a path around it. I did not spot this amendment until today, so I have not consulted at all, but I hope that the Government would not accept the suggestion that Lundy Island should be included in the Bill without extensive consultation with the Landmark Trust and the users there, because it seems a thoroughly bad idea. I do not know whether the noble Lord has consulted the Landmark Trust, and do not want to prolong this endless process of looking at the Bill's detail, but I feel that I must say that.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I had no idea of my noble friend's connection with Lundy when I prepared these notes, but it rather reinforces my position. I find myself in danger of putting myself in the middle of the road, in that I can agree with the principle in the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but I am not sure if I can fully support these changes in reality. The noble Lord is most concerned that the coastal access route should cover as much of the country as possible. I have much sympathy with that viewpoint; there should be a priority to increase public access to the coast for enjoyment and recreational purposes. Nevertheless, these amendments go a bit too far.
	Amendment A307 would include the Isle of Wight and Lundy Island under the coastal access scheme. I wonder why the noble Lord feels that to be necessary when, as my noble friend has already said, Lundy Island is owned by the Landmark Trust and is a hub for visitors undertaking many different forms of recreation, while the Isle of Wight has,
	"the most concentrated network of public rights of way in the UK".
	These islands are set up to actively encourage coastal enjoyment.
	Amendments A309 and A310 are designed to include islands that can also be reached by ferry; Amendments A311 and A312 are drafted to ensure that even very small islands are included. I can see, and sympathise with, the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for including every part of England in the coastal access scheme. Nevertheless, it is important to accept that there would be enormous difficulties if the proposals from the noble Lord were accepted. It would mean, for example, considerable further investment and complex work in order to ensure that every island would be safely and securely maintained.
	Furthermore, it would involve increased activity and possible threat to wildlife or livestock on islands on which far fewer people would otherwise have recourse to visit. Moreover, if they did, they could make use of the already extant rights of way, which are often available. The noble Lord has honourable and noble intentions, but his desire to blanket the coastline of every small island in England may result in more damage than is necessary. At the heart of the Bill, we must find a balance. That has been the case in our many debates about sustainable development and now forms the basis of our discussion about coastal access. We want people to have increased access around the English coast, but we do not want that to be taken to such extremes that it causes problems and disrupts communities because paths are created for the sake of having paths. We must take account of the checks and balances and act accordingly.
	Amendment A311 raises some interesting questions. Clause 290(2)(b) allows the Secretary of State to specify islands that will be included under the coastal access scheme. Can the Minister tell us more about how about how the process will work, bearing in mind my previous comments, and tell us which islands are under consideration? I look forward to his response.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. If the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is taking up a position midway between that of the Government, which mainly concerns the coastal route on the mainland, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which is to include the islands, he is going to get very wet—more in danger of drowning than of being knocked over.
	My real grievance with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is that he has taken most of the points I was going to make. I substantially agree with him that islands raise some complex issues. We clearly could not include all islands. Noble Lords will recognise the problems consequent on that, given that some islands are very small. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has focused on Lundy and the Isle of Wight, and I will come to them in a moment.
	I recognise that many people will want the coastal access route to be extended to islands around the English coast, where that is practicable, so that they can enjoy the wonderful scenery and wildlife that the islands provide. Clause 290 defines the English coast for the purposes of this part, and islands that are accessible on foot will be considered part of the English coast—which of course includes Holy Island and other islands that may at certain times be cut off but are nevertheless for part of the time accessible by foot by means of a causeway. Where islands are not accessible by foot, they can be included by an order of the Secretary of State as long as he is satisfied that the coast of the island is long enough to offer a long-distance route enabling the public to make an extensive journey on foot.
	I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said about how long counts as extensive. The requirement in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 specifies an extensive journey on foot. That is reasonable given the concept of the coastal path and obviates the necessity for us to consider access to very small islands, on which the concept of significant walking on a coastal path would be almost meaningless. The amendment insists that both the Isle of Wight and Lundy would automatically be included as part of the English coast. My noble friend Lord Hunt responded to a Parliamentary Question earlier this year by saying that we would indeed consider the extent to which they qualified as being accessible under the current provisions of the Bill.
	The Isle of Wight is not included because it cannot be reached on foot, but of course there are regular, consistent services to the Isle of Wight guaranteed for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the Isle of Wight comes into a very specific category. We will look further at that issue; our minds are not closed about it. I just make the obvious point that, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, emphasised, the Isle of Wight has extensive provision for coastal walks already. As the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, access to Lundy guarantees extensive possibilities—virtually the whole of the island can be traversed on foot.
	We do not want to be restrictive about islands. We will consult further on the issue with the Isle of Wight and I entirely accept the point made by the noble Baroness: the Government need to think seriously about Lundy, not least because access is somewhat different from that to the Isle of Wight. On other islands, access is also governed by what links there are from the mainland. It goes without saying that it is meaningless to talk about opportunity if there is no regular service. That is why we recognise the importance of access by foot or ferry being included in the definition of the English coast. What about those islands which people can access by boat, but which do not have a regular ferry service?

Lord Tyler: While the Minister is describing the Government's general approach to this issue in a very helpful way, perhaps he would comment on the specific issue of the Isles of Scilly, which are referred to in subsection (7), which refers to Section 297. I know that the governance of the Isles of Scilly is unusual and perhaps somewhat anomalous, but I presume that the Government intend to extend similar consultation on and therefore delineation of access to the coast of at least the larger isles in that group.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord indicates the difficulties we have. The larger and smaller islands in that group scarcely fit in any concept of an extensive walk and therefore run counter to the principle behind the Bill. I hear what the noble Lord says. There are particular difficulties with regard to Scilly different from those of the Isle of Wight or Lundy. We accept the broad proposition that the coastal route would be enhanced by taking into account those islands that are accessible—even if an island is accessible only for part of the day by a causeway. We will also look at the question of the two particular islands: the Isle of Wight and Lundy. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has already explained why Lundy fits into a significant category. It is already in the possession of the Landmark Trust and only a very limited part of Lundy is inaccessible to anyone who wants to walk it once they get there.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Just for the record, Lundy is owned by the National Trust. As far as I know there is total access everywhere, but it is run by the Landmark Trust—everyday arrangements are made by the Landmark Trust. It is a very different prospect to the Isle of Wight; it has nothing to do with it at all.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I would not say that it has, but the noble Baroness will recognise that they are grouped together in an amendment, to which I am replying. She is absolutely right: Lundy scarcely raises an issue about access for walking. As we have already considered in this short debate, it is true that the Isle of Wight also has very extensive access to its coastal areas and therefore might be regarded as not necessarily within the Bill's framework. However, we will look at that point further in the noble Lord's amendment. The Government's case is that the Bill gives the flexibility to treat islands around the English coast appropriately. Obviously, the islands vary in terms of the criteria that they might need to meet. They allow for the coastal route to include islands which are accessible on foot, and other islands will be included after discussion and consultation and consideration of the views of those with a local interest.
	If the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, tabled these amendments to probe the Government's perspective then, in terms of intent, we are entirely with him. However, he will also recognise that there is a vast disparity between the nature of the islands around the English coast and that the Bill has to provide some flexibility and demarcation in that regard. This being a probing amendment, I hope he will recognise that he can safely withdraw it, as the Government are looking at the matter in a manner largely consistent with his own perspective.

Lord Greaves: I thought that the last sentence of the Minister's speech was completely opposite to everything else he said, but I will read it very carefully in Hansard. I thank him very much for the care he has taken going into this issue.
	The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that the Isle of Wight did not need to be there. He could apply the same argument to much of the south-west and just miss it out of the Bill. It seems to me that the case for the Isle of Wight is overwhelming. It is a large, free-standing island which by and large possesses the same characteristics as a large part of the English coast and the hinterland of that coast. There is no reason why the Isle of Wight should not be included. I was grateful for what the Minister said about that island.
	The answer we need from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is why it should not be included. The mainland coast is going to be there, whatever its present condition and access provision, so why should the Isle of Wight not be there? Obviously, Lundy Island is a very different place from the Isle of Wight, and the reason why those two islands have been mentioned is that they are the two obvious examples of large, free-standing islands in England—apart from the Scilly Isles, which are referred to in a completely different section of the Bill, for reasons that people say are "all the usual reasons", which I do not understand. I am told by people who know the Scilly Isles that I do not really want to understand. So there we go. It is too complicated.
	I do not want to see every small island included, and that is not what my amendment suggests in any shape or form. What I had hoped was that the Government would give us some idea of the criteria which they will apply. Apart from the Isle of Wight, I do not think that I got a single useful comment from the Minister on that. He was very good at disguising the fact that he was not going to give me an answer to that, and certainly was not going to give me a list of names of islands that might be included. But we will have to live with that for a short time.
	Finally, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that what the Minister says about Lundy is absolutely correct. You can walk anywhere on Lundy. I have walked around the coast of Lundy, I have climbed on the cliffs, and I have gone down perilous, steep, grassy slopes to the beaches and back again. It is a great, fun place to be, so in a sense it does not need to be included. The real danger of not including places, though, is the old danger that if they are not included, some people will come along and say, "It is not included. Therefore at some future stage we will start to introduce restrictions which are not there at the moment". That is the argument used by horse riders, for example. It is an argument which has been used on CROW land all the way. There is an issue there. Regardless of whether it is needed in a utilitarian way immediately, if it ought to be in, it ought to be in. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment A307 withdrawn.
	Amendments A308 to A312 not moved.
	Clause 290 agreed.
	Clause 291 : River estuaries
	Amendments A313 to A316 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendment A316A
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	A316A: Clause 291, page 176, line 35, leave out "(3)(b)" and insert "(3)"

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: In moving this amendment, I will also speak to Amendment A318A. My amendments in this group seek to probe how the establishment of a coastal route will be handled when we come to estuaries. We touched on this matter on the previous day in Committee, enough to tell me that, once again, I might be on the opposite side of the argument to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. He is not in his place at the moment, so perhaps we will not hear from him on this issue. But my difference with him on the basic projection of how this path is going to be brought in is a matter of pragmatism. There are notorious difficulties with some areas: islands are one of them and estuaries are another. So the thinking behind these amendments is to acknowledge that difficulty and ensure that problems with estuaries do not hold up the development of the routes as a whole.
	My amendments seek to ensure that Natural England takes special care when designating the routes around estuaries, especially as regards environmental considerations. Estuaries are, of course, where some of the most important and unfortunately fragile wildlife habitats are to be found. As the Bill is drafted, it seems that a right of access will be driven through potentially sensitive areas for the sole aim of joining up two parts of the coastal path. I hope the Minister will be able to assure me that this is not the case.
	It would seem more sensible to put in an aim that the coastal route should not come to an abrupt end in the middle of nowhere. Moreover, given that estuaries are generally either more built up than the coast, or liberally scattered with conservation sites, would it not be more sensible to place the duty on Natural England to find the most convenient right of way at which to end the coastal route? Walkers wanting to continue their journey would then have the opportunity to go on without having to backtrack, but would not be sent through unsuitable ground.
	As regards the wider approach to estuaries, we are pleased to see that Natural England retains some discretion as to whether to continue the route into the relevant upstream waters. This is again a point where I anticipate we might find ourselves in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
	Although the continuity of the coastal route is, of course, desirable, it is not, to us, the overwhelming priority. Increasing access to the coast is our priority, and forcing Natural England to spend scarce resources on an estuarial route rather than on a coastal route seems counterproductive. Some estuaries may be relatively easy to incorporate into the coastal route, but many will not. Not only are there the environmental considerations I have spoken of, but there are developments such as ports and marinas, which we have already discussed at considerable length as being unsuitable for the route. We are talking about land which is much more likely to be built on or developed. Unlike other long-distance footpaths, which by definition have been designed to avoid developed areas, as soon as you get into estuaries, there are considerable problems associated with development.
	The primary aim for Natural England should be to establish the quickest and easiest way for walkers to get to the other side of the estuary, back on to coastal land, where they can continue their walk. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that this clause stand part, not because I want to take it out but because, having read it and reread it, I am not clear about exactly how it will work. When I thought about it, it became clear that it needed to be debated.
	Having read stuff produced by Natural England on how it is going to go about this matter, and having discussed it with the Minister and his team and read a lot of the material, I am a little clearer on what is going to happen but still not completely clear. I apologise for not being present to hear the first part of what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, although I understand that he thought that I would disagree with him—but when you have to go, you have to go. However, I heard what he said towards the end and I suspect that, if we looked in a practical way at particular estuaries, we would agree more often than disagree. It is a question of what should be in the legislation and how it should be defined.
	There are two issues about which I am still not at all clear. One is the question of estuarial waters. The relevance of the nature of the waters to a coastal path is not clear to me. It seems that the other issues in this clause concerning whether it looks and feels like coastal land, and the practicalities of it—river crossings and so on—are far more relevant than the nature of the water and whether it is salt or fresh water. I do not know how people walking round the coast are supposed to know about that anyhow. Therefore, I am not sure that that is the right definition.
	If you are going to define an estuary, you should simply draw a line and say that that is where the estuary starts—from a common-sense, geographical point of view. The Thames estuary starts where you can draw a line along the mouth of the estuary. I do not think that that is particularly relevant so long as Natural England has the ability and flexibility to go upstream where that is sensible. That will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. There are estuaries and estuaries. Where does the Severn estuary start? Does it start at Land's End? Clearly not, or perhaps it does, but does it matter? The north coast of Cornwall, Devon and Somerset is all clearly coastal. Where does the Severn start and the Bristol Channel finish? It is a matter of opinion, is it not? Therefore, talking about estuarial waters and that kind of thing is irrelevant.
	There is the Severn and the Bristol Channel, but with big estuaries, such as those of the Thames, the Mersey and the Humber, one just has to take common-sense decisions. Then there are lots of little estuaries, particularly on the east coast of Essex, for example. I do not know when an estuary turns into a creek or whatever, but it is all very complicated and I do not think that people are particularly concerned about whether the coastal path goes up and down every little inlet. It would be absurd if it did and I do not think that anyone is arguing that it should. Common-sense views have to be taken in certain places. That seems to be the essence of the matter, and I think that this part of the Bill should be better drafted to say that.
	One document—I could not find it because Hansard had taken it away to copy it—talks about the work schemes which Natural England is getting on with now, one of which is some sort of pilot project to look at how a particular estuary might work. Does the Minister have any information on which estuary it is, how typical it might be and whether we can judge that? I believe that, when they come out, the results of that piece of work will be very important as an indication of how estuaries will be looked at.
	The final point is the question of how far upstream the path goes and the ability to go to the first crossing point. There may be some instances where there is a sensible case for taking the coastal path upstream beyond the first crossing point if it leads to a place where the path can sensibly finish—in a village or the edge of a town or whatever. I am not suggesting that the path should go through dockyards or marinas or whatever. Clearly, we all agree that, when things such as that block the coast, the path will either have to stop or go round them. Therefore, no nonsensical ideas are being put forward here. However, the first crossing point may be a ferry, which may be seasonal, as we discussed in a previous session. When is a ferry a ferry? Is it a ferry if it runs in the summer, if it runs two days a week, if it is mechanically propelled or if people are just taken across in a rowing boat every so often? There are real difficulties in defining ferries and I am not sure that the Government have completely sorted it out. It is a difficult subject and it may not be possible to deal with it in the Bill. The definition may have to be left pretty flexible and vague, relying on the sense of Natural England and the processes of appeal and so on. In many cases, there may well be a great deal of sense in saying, "Get on with the rest of the coast and worry about the estuaries at the end". Therefore, I do not think that there is a huge amount between us. What matters is that we get a system implemented on the ground and that it makes sense in the unique circumstances of each estuary.

Baroness Byford: I rise to speak to my Amendment 319A, which is in this group and is a probing amendment. As I read Clause 291(7) on page 177 of the Bill, it looks as though there might be a conflict of interest, and I seek clarification on that. It seems to imply that Natural England and the Secretary of State can act against each other. I hope that the Minister tells me that that is not so but I shall be grateful to know what the Government intend in that subsection.
	I support my noble friend's comments about estuaries. In the Joint Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, we had quite a long discussion on the question of where estuaries begin and finish, and whether the first crossing is appropriate. My noble friend highlighted an important point, which I refer to on page 89 of the Joint Committee's report:
	"There will also be sensitive habitats which require either permanent or seasonal restriction of access. The other main interruption to the path will come in the form of commercial businesses and private properties, of which there are many along the coast".
	The difficulty with this Bill is in trying to find a sensitive way of opening up access in particular areas, especially in estuaries. My amendment is very specific and I should be grateful for clarification.

Baroness Hamwee: I support my noble friend in his plea for a common-sense approach. The point at which I became completely confused in Clause 291 was in trying to read subsection (3)(b) against subsection (4)(f). Subsection (3)(b) deals with "downstream" of the point described in subsection (3)(a). Under subsection (4), Natural England has regard to matters which are listed in taking its decision under subsection (3)(b). Those matters are listed in subsection (4). Paragraph (f) says that it has to consider,
	"whether it is desirable to continue the ... route to a particular physical feature".
	I read that as being upstream of the point in subsection (3)(a), otherwise there would be no need to mention it. However, subsections (4) and (3)(b) deal with "downstream". I hope that your Lordships are with me with so far.
	My difficulty may be, as my noble friend identified, not understanding what is meant by "estuarial waters" within the limits of transitional waters within the directive—that is in the interpretation clause. My goodness, if one has to go round and round in such circles, it certainly argues for trying to cut through this and find the sort of common-sense approach that my noble friend was describing.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That was a very interesting debate and I accept that both the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his discussion on clause stand part, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, are probing. They and other noble Lords have very eloquently described some of the challenges relating to the coastal access path and estuaries. Let me make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that the Government do not want to send walkers through inappropriate areas. The point he made is well taken and I agree with him that there should not be a sense of Natural England being forced down the estuaries, but there are some estuaries where it makes sense and is appropriate for the path to follow some part of the estuary. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was that there might be a case for flexibility regarding estuaries, because of the different natures of many estuaries and some of the challenges involved. I think he is right and that is why we prefer the wording of the Bill. I assure noble Lords that in making provision for estuaries in the Bill, we do not want to overcomplicate matters; we do not want Natural England to have to spend enormous time worrying about estuaries at the expense of the coastal path. I hope that it helps noble Lords when I make that very clear from this Dispatch Box.

Lord Greaves: Does the Minister accept the position that I have come to—that the wording in the Bill is not flexible enough?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Not entirely. I am going to comment sympathetically on one amendment, so I am hoping to give greater flexibility and answer some of the points that noble Lords raised. I have not detected much disagreement between noble Lords on this as a matter of principle; it is just a question of whether we have the wording absolutely right.
	In general, Clause 291 gives Natural England the flexibility to propose the establishment of the route up estuaries to the first pedestrian crossing point. It makes it clear that Natural England can decide not to extend the route at any point between the mouth of the river—the seaward limit of the estuarial waters, where the fresh water of a river mixes with the salt water of the open sea—and the first crossing point. In such cases, there would a break in the continuity of the route. We recognise that estuaries throw up particular challenges—they are very variable in extent, they are very important for wildlife and they may be more developed, as noble Lords have said, than the open coast. We think it important that Natural England should have the flexibility to decide on the approach to estuaries on a case-by-case basis. I think that that is the common-sense approach that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggests, but I am interested in his views on the wording—whether there is enough flexibility—and I will give them some consideration.
	In deciding whether to make a recommendation to stop the route at any point between the mouth of the river and the first crossing point, Natural England must have regard to both the general considerations in Clause 287 and the additional matters in Clause 291(4), which include, among others, the nature of the land, the topography of the shoreline, the width of the river upstream to the first crossing point and the existence of a ferry by which the public may cross the river.
	I fully understand the point about estuarial waters. Clause 299 says that,
	"'estuarial waters' means any waters within the limits of transitional waters, within the meaning of the Water Framework Directive (that is to say, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy)".
	This definition is used in Clause 291, which refers to estuarial waters for the purpose of describing where the route may be established beside an estuary. I understand entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, meant when he asked about the relevance of the definition of estuarial waters. We needed a convenient method to specify the outer parameter for considering estuaries. As he says, what an estuary is is a matter of opinion, but we needed an outer limit to act as a starting point; it is no more than a starting point. Natural England can then consult and discuss what a common-sense approach to an estuary is. We think we have sufficient flexibility, but with a clearly defined point from which Natural England can start.

Lord Greaves: The Minister reading out those technical details about this European directive, or whatever it is, just shows how irrelevant it is as a criterion for people walking around the coast. It has nothing to do with people walking around the coast, and has been decided upon and agreed for completely different purposes. When you have big estuaries, you have to make common-sense decisions, but the Minister referred to "the mouth of the river" and in most cases, most people looking at the mouth of a river would say, "That is the mouth of the river". Why do the Government not talk about "the mouth of the river" rather than about the chemical composition of the water at any particular place?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To be frank, it is a convenient definition. Surely it is important for Natural England to have a definition which is understood and which it can start from. We have the flexibility, but Natural England does not have to use that. We have the provision for it to go up the estuary, but that is the main reason for any use. I realise that one is always open to criticism when one reads a technical definition out, but at least there is clarity and that is important.
	The noble Lord asked about pilot schemes. I do not have details about where they are being undertaken, but I shall find out and let noble Lords know, certainly in time for Report. On the question of sensitive habitats raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I understand the point well. Restrictions and exclusions of access may be applied on estuaries, as on other parts of the coastal route, and they may be applied for reasons of natural conservation. We all know that many estuaries are places of outstanding importance to the environment and to wildlife. Of course, it is important that those are protected and that will be a consideration that Natural England will have to pay attention to.
	On the amendments, I shall start with Amendment A316A, where the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is arguing that Natural England should have to take into account all the criteria in Section 291(4) when deciding to go up to either the first crossing point or any point between the mouth of the river and the first crossing point. Having listened to his argument, I have no difficulties in accepting the principle behind this amendment, which would mean that Natural England must not decide to continue the route up to the first crossing point solely on the basis of the desirability of the continuity of the route. The criteria in this clause were tailored to be applied in the case that Natural England might propose that the coastal route should go up to a point between the mouth of the estuary and the first crossing point. I will take this point and look at it again with a view to bringing forward an amendment on Report that makes the considerations listed in Clause 291(4) apply to all decisions about estuaries. In that sense, I hope that that greater flexibility also meets the very sensible common-sense test that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has put forward.
	Amendment A318A would add a further matter on the existence of environmental designations to the list of considerations in Clause 291(4) and require Natural England to explain in its coastal access report how the recreational benefits, set out in subsection (4)(d), outweigh any of the other matters. I understand what the noble Lord is saying, but I do not think that it is needed. Natural England will be under a duty to strike a fair balance, which we have discussed before, and will need to consider that balance as part of its report. It will undertake a detailed analysis on each estuary. It has already set out in its draft scheme information on the special considerations it will take into account in making a recommendation on any particular estuary. It will also comply with its existing statutory obligations in respect of sites and features on the coast.
	The point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in her Amendment A319A is interesting and I can understand why it has been put forward. The substance of the argument is that we believe it is important for the Secretary of State to be able to come to a different conclusion to Natural England about decisions on estuaries. But the provision in the Bill is worded in the way that it is because we want to avoid any suggestion that the Secretary of State's decision is pre-empted by the combination of subsection (5) and Natural England's decision under subsections (2) and (3). I readily accept that it is a rather complicated way of doing so, but the essence is that the coastal access duty of the Secretary of State is independent from that of Natural England. The Secretary of State must be able to come to a separate decision on that, in the same way as he can disagree with Natural England's proposals in a coastal access report. However, I accept that the way in which it has been drafted is complicated, so I understand why the noble Baroness has proposed her amendment.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his explanation. Surely that would be true of all coastal access throughout the Bill, yet only this bit is specifically worded in this way. I do not think that I am wrong about that.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Baroness is not wrong. It is because of the way in which the whole clause has been drafted. I am in danger of giving aid to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on this matter. I am happy to write to the noble Baroness with further details. She is right in what she says in substance and, as she said, the principle is no different from the other points in the Bill which relate to the coastal access path in general.

Lord Greaves: I have nothing more to say specifically on what has been discussed. I shall make just two points. My first has no relevance to this Bill. One of the great access battles of the future will be about access along watercourses, which may resolve the estuarial problem in due course. That is some years away, but it is there and will happen. Secondly, I forgot to ask whether Morecambe Bay is part of the coast or an estuary.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not know.

Lord Greaves: Will someone find out before this Bill has to be applied to it?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: This debate has been very useful. I think that all sides of the Committee find themselves in the middle of the path. It is very good that the debate has proved to be positive. It is unfortunate that it has shown just how difficult it is to move the business of the Committee on. We are dealing with complicated topics. One of the virtues of having time to discuss these matters properly has been the consideration of this quite complex matter. I am grateful for the notice that the Minister has given that he will look at Amendment A316A, and no doubt in the process he will look at all elements of this clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment A316A withdrawn.
	Amendments A317 and A318 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendment A318A not moved.
	Amendment A319 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendment A319A not moved.
	Amendment A320 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Clause 291 agreed.
	Clause 292 : Long-distance routes
	Amendments A321 to A325 not moved.
	Amendment A326
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	A326: Clause 292, page 178, line 9, leave out "may" and insert "is likely within the next ten years to"

Lord Greaves: I appear to have lost my notes, which perhaps will speed things up a little. These amendments are about what happens when erosion occurs along the coast. In moving Amendment A326, I shall speak also to Amendments A328A, A329, A330 and A358DA in this group. Amendment A326 would clarify the circumstances under which the report into the proposals for a particular piece of coast would find it necessary to identify coast which was going to retreat and to identify alternative retreat lines in the likelihood of coastal erosion. At the moment, the Bill states that this should happen where the coast "may" be liable to retreat. I suggest that we should leave out the word "may" and insert the words, "is likely within the next ten years".
	The draft scheme put forward by Natural England suggests that 20 years could be the appropriate length of time. This is a probing amendment to determine what the Bill means and what sort of timescale would be thought to be appropriate. Clearly, at some stage a report for a particular part of the coast could be amended by means of a review. If a coast was likely to erode back to the line of the route within, say, 50 years, it would not have to be dealt with immediately. What timescale are the Government thinking of for it to be dealt with in the report?
	Amendment A328A is a consequential amendment. Amendment A329 has been tabled to probe the meaning of the words,
	"geomorphological processes in relation to which the Agency has functions".
	New Section 55B(6), to be inserted in the 1949 Act, will state:
	"Natural England must consult the Environment Agency before exercising its powers",
	in respect of sub-paragraph (a), which makes provision in respect of rollback when there is erosion. It says:
	"Natural England must consult the Environment Agency ... in respect of an area which is or may be ... subject to significant coastal erosion or encroachment by the sea",
	which is sensible and understandable,
	"or ... subject to significant physical change due to other geomorphological processes in relation to which the Agency has functions".
	I do not understand what that means. Geomorphological processes by and large are the processes of weathering, erosion and deposition. I do not know what other processes there are that might be covered by the suggestion that the Environment Agency has functions in relation to them. I am, however, glad to see that the word "geomorphological" is being used in this context.
	Amendment A330 would insert,
	"subject to significant physical change as a result of actions by the Agency or other public body".
	At the moment rollback, as I understand it, refers to natural processes of natural erosion and other geomorphologicalprocesses. There might be circumstances in which there must be rollback because of actions by the Environment Agency or any other public body. An obvious example is part of the east coast of England being flooded as part of protecting the land against rising sea levels—land that has been reclaimed in the past and which is now being sent back to the sea—which might result in having to put the line of the route in a different place if the flooding was not planned or making provision for the line of the route to change if the coast is flooded later.
	Finally, Amendment A358DA in a sense goes back to the question of what happens to rollback when the line of the route is along a public right of way and not on newly created access land. We discussed this in our debate on higher rights such as horse-riding and the fact that if they are along a right of way, the rollback provisions will not protect the right of way but will create new access land: or will they? What exactly will happen if the line of the coastal route is along an existing right of way—a footpath or a bridleway—and rollback provisions are thought to be necessary? Will those rollback provisions be put in regardless but relate to access land as opposed to a right of way? How will that work? This is a complicated matter, and I am not sure that it has been completely thought through. If it has been completely thought through, it has not been explained to me in a way that I yet understand properly. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: My Amendment A326A is linked with this group and is another probing amendment. In our brief discussions on an earlier amendment, I gave the example of the Nare Hotel in Cornwall and erosion that had affected the pathway. By local agreement, it has now been put behind the hotel. I refer again to that sort of subject.
	I suggest that we remove new Section 55B(4) in Clause 292 in order to have a discussion about the whole question of rollback. I know the east coast quite well. Just up from Southwold is Covehythe. Below it is Dunwich, which is now in the sea; there is very little left. Covehythe has lost nearly three miles of coastland. The question is therefore what happens to a pathway when it is realigned? Is there a risk that it could be put through a farmyard, farm business park or private estate? What comeback would the owner of that property, who may well not have been the owner of the original pathway that is now no more and is in the sea, have when the pathway is redesignated?
	The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, is no longer in his place, but quite a few areas along the north Norfolk coast—Suffolk and Essex have been mentioned before—face a considerable threat of new erosion. If there is to be a recognised path for people to walk on, what will happen when so much of it is no longer in being and the new path is likely to go across another owner's land in place of the traditional path that had been agreed in the past? That is the reasoning behind my amendment, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Earl Cathcart: One of the inherent difficulties with a route of this sort is that we have to provide not only for a proper method for setting up the path but for a way of incorporating changes as the paths are affected by weather, erosion and other physical changes.
	The Bill allows alternative routes to be proposed that can be used during specified periods, in place of exclusions from Chapter II in Part I of the CROW Act, or for reasons of flooding, erosion or geomorphological processes. It also allows Natural England, when an area is subject to erosion or physical damage, to set out proposals for any part of the route to be changed in accordance with these proposals. On one hand this seems sensible; there will obviously be physical changes to the route, as flooding, erosion or exclusions under the CROW Act will mean that access to the ordinary route is blocked or impossible. We do not want walkers scrabbling around the edge of a cliff trying to stick to the original path.
	Nevertheless, some equilibrium has to be found. Amendment A326A, in the name of my noble friend Lady Byford, flags up the issue that, under the Bill, the route can be determined by reference to the edge of a cliff or the boundary of a field. Will the Minister inform the Committee whether there will be any restraints on the changes that can be made? Does he agree that a sensible balance must be maintained, or does he argue that landowners should be expected to watch as the path creeps further and further into their land or farmyard?
	On a tangential point, new Section 55B(6) requires Natural England to consult the Environment Agency under certain conditions. Will the Minister say whether, before changes to the route are made under this part of the Bill, Natural England will,
	"consult such persons as it considers appropriate",
	as per Clause 288(5)? Before changes are made, will Natural England consult all interested parties, particularly the occupier of the land, on those changes?
	I declare my support for Amendment A326 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. This amendment would usefully clarify a timeframe for assessing whether an area "may" be subject to erosion "within the next ten years". Does the Minister agree that this is a useful definition? Surely without this timeframe, it could be argued that any area is subject to the possibility of erosion or physical change at some unspecified time in the future.
	Amendments A329 and A330, which are also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also seem sensible, as they would guarantee that Natural England had to consult the Environment Agency before making changes to the route, even if the geomorphological pressures causing the change had nothing to do with the Environment Agency itself. Does the Minister agree that it is important that the Environment Agency is included in the consultation process, bearing in mind that my consultation process would include all interested parties, including occupiers of the land? I will be interested to hear his response.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been an interesting debate. Clause 292 inserts new sections into Part IV of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. New Section 55B provides for the coastal route to roll back where the cliff is subject to significant erosion or other forms of coastal change and says that in relevant areas, the route may be identified according to the proposals made in Natural England's report, for example, by proximity to a cliff edge or in relation to a field boundary.
	Amendment A326, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would have the effect of applying this section where the change is likely to occur within the next 10 years. It is clear that Natural England will have to give detailed consideration to such areas, but there is a problem in setting a time limit. Without being a scientist, it is perfectly possible to see that a section of coastal pathway is subject to significant erosion, but it is generally more difficult to determine when the erosion may take place. Is it one year, 10, 20 or 50 years? While I understand exactly where the noble Lord is coming from, that is why we are rather resistant to putting a time limit into primary legislation. It would fetter the flexibility of Natural England in that regard.
	Amendments A328A, A329 and A330 deal with matters where an area is or may be subject to significant coastal erosion or encroachment by the sea, or to any significant physical change due to other geomorphological processes in relation to which the Environment Agency has functions. The amendments would remove the reference to the agency's functions where the agency must be consulted. Let me make it clear that if the agency has no relevant functions, it would be unable to give any advice as a statutory body. If the amendments were accepted, Natural England would also have to consult with regard to physical change as a result of actions by public bodies.
	The relevant functions of the Environment Agency that we have in mind are these. The agency has specific functions in relation to flood risk and flood defence management, which are relevant to new Section 55B(6)(a) and set out in the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Environment Act 1995. In relation to new Section 55B(6)(b) the functions referred to are those in the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003, the Water Resources Act 1991 and the water framework directive itself. The agency, as the flood risk management authority, needs to be aware of areas on the coastal access route which are at risk of encroachment by the sea and from coastal erosion. As the competent authority for the water framework directive, it needs to be aware of risks to surface water and ground water bodies from physical change due to other geomorphological processes. That is why it is relevant that the Environment Agency should have functions and must be consulted.
	The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, asked about consultation and a review of the route. The normal process for consultation is by proposals made in Natural England's report. Consultations take place on a variation of the proposals just as they would for the initial route. I hope therefore that I can reassure him on the general point about consultation.
	New Section 55B deals with the rollback mechanism, which is appropriate for natural changes that cannot be predicted. The management of coastal erosion, flood defences and actions taken by public bodies in relation to these will be very important factors which Natural England will have to take into account when designating the route. In some cases, Natural England may indicate that the route will be reviewed when planned management measures take place. I can reassure noble Lords that the Environment Agency will be a key player in all this, and the Bill already requires Natural England in new Section 55D to consult the agency before preparing a report in relation to any interests in flood defence, in the management of the effects of coastal erosion, or in encroachment by the sea. It must also consult the agency before giving a direction for a temporary diversion in certain circumstances.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, spoke to Amendment A326A which she described as probing in nature. I ought to say that subsection (4) provides clarity to subsection (2) by saying that Natural England may describe the route by reference to a cliff edge or a field boundary,
	"as that cliff edge or field boundary exists from time to time".
	This means that as the cliff or field boundary changes over time, so does the route. That is why we think it is a useful definition. But the point she made is that the path can roll back ever further, with the risk that it ends up going through developed land. I refer the noble Baroness to the draft scheme from Natural England, particularly to section 4.9 which gives a lot of useful examples. There will be check-up points where the path runs up to developed land. It will then stop rolling back and be routed behind the developed land. We understand the point raised by the noble Baroness, but there is enough flexibility in the way the scheme is to be taken forward, although clearly we are talking about a draft version that we have had the benefit of seeing. I will make sure that my officials pass on the contents of this debate to ensure that in the final scheme, which will have to be laid before Parliament, we have made sure that the matter has been taken into account.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his response. As he knows, along the coastlines particularly of Norfolk and north Suffolk, caravan parks and holiday chalets are sited right up to the cliff edge. At the moment, the footpath does not necessarily pass in front of these structures, although in some cases it may do so. If there is a rollback, will the newly designed path still go behind the caravans, thus benefiting those using them as holiday homes or even just as visitors, or will the route itself take precedence over what for many is very much a commercial entity which could be affected if the route is a public path?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not think I can give the noble Baroness a definitive answer because it would be part of the work that has to be taken forward. I have already referred to section 4.9 of the draft scheme, which I believe gives sufficient flexibility. However, one of the issues presumably for the owners of caravan sites is that if it is perceived that there is a risk of erosion and rollback might embrace the caravan site, one must ponder the viability of the site as a whole. I think that we have the right provisions in place to take a common-sense approach to this, and I will certainly make sure that these matters are considered as we take forward the actual scheme. Rollback is sensible because it allows for flexibility, but it can also come up against viable commercial operations. We have to make sure that this works for everybody as much as we can, and I think we have the flexibility to do that.
	Amendment A358DA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised the question of the relationship between CROW and rights of way. It is a very important point. Although his amendment would ultimately mean that the route could not follow an existing right of way, it is a probing amendment, so he is not actually seeking that. It is intended to use existing public rights of way, where appropriate. My understanding is that he is asking what happens to rollback where the route is along a right of way. The route will roll back and then access will be provided under the CROW right of access. I have an extensive note on these matters. Would he be happy for me to write to him on it? It is an important point and there are situations where you have a right of way but the margin outwith the right of way is covered by CROW, so it is as complex area. I am happy to circulate a full note on the matter.

Lord Greaves: I would be grateful if the Minister did that. It is complicated and I still do not quite understand how it will work. If there is a right of way and no access land, because it is not appropriate for there to be any marginal land, how does the coastal margin associated with it then roll back? It is a technical question and there will be parts of the coast where that happens. I am reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that there are plenty of places where there is a right of way along a cliff top which has long since disappeared and roll back has occurred in an informal way. The edge of the field has rolled back because the farmer does not want to drive his tractor over the cliff edge and the right of way is through empty air. You cannot use it, but there is still a coastal path there.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In the circumstances of the coastal access path, my understanding is that you roll back and then you are relying on CROW rather than the right of way access.

Lord Greaves: I look forward to reading this long, complicated, technical letter. My only other point is that there will be some places where the coastal path has to divert inland round developed land which is falling into the sea. If the rollback is getting to developed land, some of that developed land will be falling into the sea anyway. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment A326 withdrawn.
	Amendments A326A to A330 not moved.
	Amendment A331
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	A331: Clause 292, page 178, line 32, leave out "may" and insert "shall, where appropriate,"

Lord Greaves: I will also speak to Amendments A333 to A336. All the amendments in this group deal with alternative routes where, for different reasons, the usual route is not usable or is banned from being used and there has to be an alternative route provided, which in most cases will obviously be further inland.
	Amendment A331 deals with proposed new Section 55C, which is about alternative routes. Subsection (2) states:
	"The report may include, in relation to the route ('the ordinary route') or any part of it, a proposal under subsection (3) or (4)".
	This is a proposal for an alternative route which is to operate as a diversion. Amendment A331 says that, where there is a blockage of the route for whatever reason, there has to be an alternative route. The Bill says that it "may" include proposals for an alternative route. The amendment says that that must be the case where appropriate. It may be semantics or it may be an important point.
	Amendment A333 probes the question of proposals for an alternative route under proposed new Section 55C(3),
	"which is to operate as a diversion from the ordinary route, or part of it, during one or both of the following—
	(a) any specified period (or periods), and
	(b) any period during which access to the ordinary route ... is excluded by reason of a direction under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the CROW Act (exclusion or restriction of access)".
	The second part of that is fairly clear and obvious but the first part is not. "Any specified period or periods" is a very general and vague phrase. The purpose of the amendment is to probe what it means. It is linked to Amendment A336, which takes out subsection (5), again for the purpose of probing it to understand what it means. It says:
	"In subsection 3(a) 'specified' means—
	(a)specified in, or determined in accordance with, the proposal, or
	(b) determined in accordance with the proposal by—
	(i) a person specified in a proposal or
	(ii) a person determined in accordance with the proposal, details of whom are notified to Natural England in accordance with the proposal".
	This is getting very close to being legislative gobbledegook. It took me a very long time to understand it, and I am not sure that I do now. The basic question underlying all this is: what kind of circumstances may apply where subsection (3)(a) closures may be brought into effect?
	Amendment A334 is intended specifically to bring in the question of ferries and to require an alternative route to be provided when ferries are not operating. At the moment the coastal path can be defined as including a journey by ferry. It specifically says it is a journey on foot, except where there is a ferry. As we have discussed, there are seasonal ferries, ferries which operate once or twice a day, ferries which operate every half hour, ferries which do not operate on Sundays, et cetera. This amendment would require an alternative route to be provided if the journey was blocked because a ferry was not operating for any substantial or reasonable period of time.
	Amendment A335 is about the provisions in proposed new Section 55C(4), which are optional alternatives. The subsection states:
	"(4) A proposal under this subsection is a proposal for an alternative route which is to operate as an optional alternative to the ordinary route, or part, during any period for which the ordinary route, or part, might reasonably be regarded as unsuitable for use by reason of—
	(a) flooding,
	(b) the action of the tide,
	(c) coastal erosion or encroachment by the sea, or
	(d) the effect of any other geomorphological process".
	I am glad to see that geomorphology appears again.
	This is to probe what is meant by,
	"optional alternative to the ordinary route".
	Are there optional alternatives at any time? Is there an alternative for people who do not want to go across land which might be liable to be flooded, even if it was not the flooding season, or for people who do not want to be caught by the tide, even if it is low tide and they could get across?
	What is an optional alternative? Is it an option that exists all the time, or does it exist only when either flooding is taking place, the tide is in or it is a particularly high tide, or there is coastal erosion or encroachment by the sea—I am not sure that coastal erosion should be here; that should be a permanent alternative, but never mind—or the effect of any other geomorphological process? I am not sure what such a process might be; I suppose it might be a landslide, if the route goes below cliffs that are liable to that kind of process. Is it a permanent option that exists all the time and the person walking along the coast decides whether or not to exercise it, or is the option decided by someone else who says, "Ey up, the tide's in. Let's put a sign up sending people around a different way"? This is quite important. In practice, if there is an optional route, it ought to be there all the time and people can then exercise their judgment about whether to go along the potentially dangerous route or to take the safe one. I beg to move.

Earl Cathcart: This is another set of amendments regarding possible changes in routes and the issues surrounding the problems posed by changes such as erosion. I agree with Amendment A331 of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves; it is important for the sake of clarity and transparency that proposals for changes under subsections (3) and (4) are included in the report. Further amendments make the alternative routes much more flexible, both by removing the definition of "specified periods" and by allowing the alternative route to be a generic optional route, not subject to use in conditions of, for example, flooding or coastal erosion.
	Proposed new Section 55C(4) lists reasons for unsuitability for use of the ordinary route:
	"flooding ... the action of the tide ... coastal erosion or encroachment by the sea ... the effect of any other geomorphological process".
	I know that the Minister hates lists, but here he has one. He hates them because people add to them, and I am not going to disappoint him here. There are other appropriate reasons why one may need a different route, such as the nesting season. Maybe you do not want people walking through a site then. In Norfolk, for instance, where I come from, nesting sites for terns are cordoned off so that people cannot go through them during that season.
	Another reason might be that there is a military live-firing range. I do not know what the proposals are for ranges by the sea. It may be that, when the military are not using them, the coast next to the seashore can be used. And then, of course, there is shooting. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that the public are well informed when alternative routes must be used?

Baroness Hamwee: My noble friend went rather rapidly over the distinction between flooding, the tide and erosion or encroachment. Like him, I had a problem with the term "optional". I can see that it would be an "option" not to get your feet wet, but is it really a sensible option to fall into the void created by erosion? The clause seems to be dealing with very different circumstances but describing the remedy in the same way, which is not entirely appropriate.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to noble Lords for the points they have raised on this interesting part of the Bill. In general, the clause is a useful addition; it provides some flexibility for the circumstances described in this part of the Bill. It is an example of how the Bill seeks to anticipate circumstances that might arise and not then cause a halt to the coastal route, so as a general point this is a sensible proposal.
	Noble Lords have raised a number of interesting questions and examples. They question whether the Bill as it is drafted really meets those circumstances, and I will look at these matters between Committee and Report to ensure that I am satisfied that it does. A number of interesting points have been made here.
	Amendment A331 would change the wording so that instead of saying that Natural England may provide for an alternative route, it would say that Natural England must, where appropriate, include such a proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested that he might be being somewhat overprescriptive, and I think he is. The important point is that Natural England has the ability to propose alternative routes where it considers that it is appropriate to do so, which is implied by the use of the word "may".
	I realise that if the noble Lord had proposed "must" and not "where appropriate", my argument against him would be stronger; if that were the case, Natural England would have to consider on every stretch of the route whether an alternative route was appropriate and where it should go. By the use of the phrase "where appropriate" he has qualified the use of the word "must", but on the other hand I have no reason to think that the use of the word "may" would inhibit Natural England from taking a sensible and proportionate approach to this.
	We then have a series of amendments, A333 to A336, the effect of which would be that an alternative route could be provided only when an exclusion or restriction of access under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was in force or in an estuary when a ferry was not working. My problem with that is that the amendments would essentially remove Natural England's ability to specify any other period during which an alternative route may operate and remove the four situations that are listed in the Bill where an optional alternative route might be put in place when a route is unsuitable for use—for instance, for flooding, the action of the tide, coastal erosion or encroachment of the sea or the effect of any other geomorphological process.
	The noble Lord posed the question: if an alternative route is prescribed, what are the options for people to use it? That is not how we see it; we see the alternative route being used only when the particular conditions set out in subsection (4)(a) to (d) apply. However, the person exercising their right can also exercise their judgment about whether those conditions apply. I am not suggesting that we are going to have notices up and down the country saying at which moment an alternative route may apply or not. We have to have some flexibility with regard to that.
	There are other issues listed in this clause that noble Lords have raised. On the question of the Ministry of Defence, MoD ranges are usually military by-lawed land, a category of excepted land, so the route would not go through MoD sites in the first place. He then raised the point that they might be using the firing range only at certain times of the year. The MoD might provide permissive access if the ranges are not in use and can be made safe for the public. It is probably best to leave it to the discretion of the MoD rather than use the provisions here. This provides a useful flexibility. I have no reason to believe that Natural England will not use it sensibly. That is why I would like to retain the word "may". It has been an interesting debate and between now and Report I will look at some of the instances noble Lords have raised to make sure that they are covered by the current wording.

Lord Greaves: Will the Minister consider further the question I raised about the specified period or periods and this extraordinarily convoluted new Section 55C(5) which says what "specified" means. Perhaps he could write and explain this to us. I am not particularly concerned about knowing exactly what it means in a grammatical sense as it seems to mean people specified or appointed in lots of different ways. I am interested to know, however, what kind of things it refers to. I was not trying to take it out but probing what kind of circumstances are in the minds of the people who wrote this legislation, of the Minister, of Natural England or of anybody else who was involved in it. It is not clear and I cannot think of any sensible circumstances, but that may be because I do not understand it. Can the Minister set out some circumstances in which it might be used?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I will do my best. If you look at the wording of new Section 55C—I know it has its moments, I accept that—the critical part is new subsection (4), which sets out the conditions in which the ordinary route or path might be regarded as unsuitable. There may be circumstances in which the unsuitability relates to a period of time. New Section 55C(3) is needed to allow Natural England to use that specification. That would be my answer to the noble Lord, but I am happy to dig deep to give some examples if we can find them.

Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister. I should also have said that I am grateful to the Minister for saying he would look at the totality of this debate and the points that have been raised. The Minister has now raised the interesting question as to whether new subsection (3) and new subsection (4) may operate together because new subsection (5) refers only to new subsection (3) and not to new subsection (4). That also relates to a question that the Minister may want to look at and write to us about. Why is the wording of new subsection (3) different from the wording of new subsection (4)? New subsection (3) refers to,
	"an alternative route which is to operate as a diversion from the ordinary route".
	I understand that as it goes on to talk about a diversion for particular periods. There would have to be notices and regulations and so on. Then new subsection (4) refers to,
	"an alternative route which is to operate as an optional alternative to the ordinary route".
	Again, I do not think the Minister has answered the question whether it will be an option at any time. If it is not supposed to be an option at any time, how will it be policed? There does not seem to be any sense to having rules which say you can come along this path, which may well become a well-trodden and clear path, but you are not supposed to go there if instead you can go along the beach if the tide is not in. If it is an optional path surely it should be an optional path at all times, otherwise it does not make sense. I do not think it can be policed. If it cannot even be informally policed by peer pressure there is no sense in it.

Earl Cathcart: I thought I was clear on this when the Minister said that interesting points had been raised and that he would take it away for consideration. He then said that the four conditions were flooding, tide, erosion and geomorphological processes. This seemed to suggest that those were the four things. When I spoke earlier I mentioned other things such as alternative paths to avoid nesting sites during specific periods. The Minister mentioned my point about the MoD but I also mentioned shooting. I read or heard somewhere that it was possible to have an alternative site if there was a party of people shooting. I should like clarification on that.

Baroness Hamwee: To add to the Minister's considerations, I wonder whether this clause could be looked at alongside new Section 55B because new Section 55C covers such a variety of things which we are describing in some cases as optional alternatives but in other cases as replacements, which would come more suitably in new Section 55B rather than in new Section 55C. This may be where some of the confusion and certainly my confusion arises.

Baroness Byford: The way I read it as an amateur from the Back Benches is that new subsection (4) spoke for itself—those were the reasons for there being an alternative route. My noble friend was right to touch on the breeding season but it could be the burning of heather or any other reason. I had assumed that that applied to new subsection (3) and the definition applied to new subsection (4) but if I am not right I should like to have it clarified.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The substantive part of this clause is new subsection (4), which sets out the circumstances. Noble Lords have raised other circumstances. I thought I had answered the question in relation to MoD land where I said it would be treated as excepted land but the MoD might then decide to open up firing ranges if it was appropriate and safe to do so. Other examples have been given such as the question of nesting. These matters will be dealt with as the plans for the coastal path are developed. That may be a factor in deciding where the route goes in the first place. I have said, however, that I will look at these examples to make sure that we are covered in relation to alternative routes.
	I know the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is critical of the wording but I do not see a conflict between new subsections (3), (4) and (5). I am clear that new subsection (5) helps to define what is meant by a specified period. New subsection (3) relates to the circumstances under new subsection (4) where it is appropriate that there is a diversion and the diversion may operate at specified periods. On the question of whether the alternative route should always be specified as being available at the same time as the main route, I think that is too inflexible. Surely there has to be flexibility. I can see that there might be circumstances where there would be no problem at all about the alternative route also being used but there might be circumstances where that was not appropriate. I understand that there is also the issue of policing. We need to be pragmatic. This is a sensible provision which we want to work in a flexible way but, as I have said, I will look into this matter and make sure that we are covered for the circumstances noble Lords have raised.

Lord Greaves: I am grateful for those further assurances from the Minister, and I add two points. He is now saying that proposed new subsection (3) qualifies proposed new subsection (4). That is not how I had read or understood them; they refer to different circumstances. Proposed new subsection (3) is not a means of qualifying proposed new subsection (4). This needs looking at again.
	As the Minister just said, we want something that is understandable and will work. I take the view, perhaps slightly arrogantly, that if I cannot understand it then lots of other people will not be able to understand it. Perhaps I am thicker than most, but I do not usually encounter that. We must get it clear.
	Secondly, if proposed new subsections (3) and (4) are separate, why is there different wording? There must be some reason for it. That is at the heart of it. Having said that—and we will have further discussions about this—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment A331 withdrawn.
	Amendments A332 to A336D not moved.
	Amendment A337
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	A337: Clause 292, page 179, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 180

Lord Greaves: I also speak to Amendment A341, which is the substantive amendment in this group. I seek to set out a clear and comprehensive consultation process during the preparation of proposal reports, which Natural England is responsible for producing for each section of the coast.
	The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, at the beginning of our proceedings this afternoon when he was talking about the importance of local authority involvement, is at the heart of this. It is very important indeed that the schemes are put together in a clear, open, transparent and consultative way, that representations are properly considered in a clear, open and transparent way, and that, as far as possible, the proposals for each section of the coast are made on the basis of consensus, or as much local consensus from all interests as possible. My amendment would insert a new Section 55DA into the 1949 Act, which would put a duty on the Secretary of State to issue regulations setting that process out. I have incorporated those proposals that are already in the Bill, to make it clearer, more comprehensive and much more satisfactory—to make it absolutely certain that what needs to be done is done.
	The regulations will require Natural England to advertise that they are preparing a coastal access report for a section of coast. They will have to consult with each local authority and national park authority, persons with a relevant interest in the land, each local access forum, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, the Environment Agency,
	"representatives of relevant recreational users and conservation interests"—
	important third-party interests—and other persons that the Secretary of State thinks appropriate. Natural England will be under a duty to,
	"consider and have regard to all representations made as a result of advertisement",
	and consultation on this. When it produces its draft report, it will have to advertise its publication, consult the persons listed—as I have already read out—on the draft report and,
	"have regard to all representations made as a result of advertisement and consultation".
	It states that Natural England may then amend and modify the report as a result of those representations.
	If I have read its reports and draft scheme correctly, this would place in the Bill what Natural England is probably going to do anyway. However, as I have said before, it is such an important thing that it ought to be in the Bill so that it cannot be changed in the future. I beg to move.

Baroness Hayman: I have to inform the Committee that, if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments A337A to A340 by reason of pre-emption.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: We were intending to discuss the consultation process in the next group. Noting the support that the amendments in this group give to local democracy, I question the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on proposed new subsection (4) and the listing of what "local authority" means. Unitary authorities and metropolitan boroughs also adjacent to the coast should really be listed there. I am not sure whether the grouping as listed covers all local authorities that are likely to be affected, or that want and need consultation.

Lord Greaves: I can answer that before the Minister replies: it does. This is the normal list that appears in local government legislation. Unitary authorities are all either counties or districts, and metropolitan districts are districts, so this covers them all.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for that clarification. Clause 292 amends Part IV of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to require Natural England to consult with various relevant bodies before drawing up a report, in addition to the persons already included in Section 51(4) of the 1949 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, proposes to remove the current list and replace it with a new list. He has presented his arguments for that.
	During the passage of this Bill, the Government have made their views on lists pretty clear. However, in Part 9 of the Bill it is important that we update the list included in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, but that does not mean that we should extend it to include all the organisations which might need to be consulted. We need to retain some degree of flexibility. The noble Lord's proposal, about which he is quite frank, is to put his list in the Bill. However, we should not be including consultees for definitive maps on rights of way in this legislation. It is entirely different from the 1949 legislation.
	Amendment A341 would insert a new section setting out a number of requirements on Natural England at the stage of their consultation during the preparation of their coastal access report. The amendment is too prescriptive and goes too far. The process for consultation in new Section 55D was drawn up to reflect what is already in Section 51 of the 1949 Act, and that places sufficient requirements on Natural England to consult appropriately. Indeed, Natural England's scheme, published in December 2008 and which we have made available to noble Lords, already builds in such a draft report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was generous enough to say that he thought that Natural England would probably do what he was prescribing. He is right, but he wants it in the Bill and I am not convinced that that degree of prescription is necessary.
	Natural England has already said that it will publish its draft proposals on the internet. It will invite all relevant interests to comment on them. It will allow a 12-week period for people to view the proposals and submit comments on the report. Natural England is fulfilling the spirit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but his amendment would put in the Bill a prescription that is a step too far because of its rigidity and the limitations that it puts on Natural England, which will work very much along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has suggested. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Greaves: I shall certainly do that in a minute. Can the Minister answer a couple of questions? First, which of the organisations listed here does the Minister think should not be consulted? This is not really a list, but a process that involves a list. Secondly, which of the stages in the consultation process that I have put forward does the Minister think should not take place?

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord presents those questions against a context in which he wants to rewrite this section of the Bill. I understand why he wants to do so. I do not say that his list does not have a large degree of accuracy to it, but the problem with being prescriptive about those terms is that it reduces flexibility. It binds Natural England against what is in the Bill in circumstances where we are talking about process. Natural England has given all evidence that it follows exactly the concepts suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, by guaranteeing to consult. We have represented those parts that we must take account of according to the 1949 Act.
	The noble Lord will appreciate that the problem with lists is that they are exhaustive today and very far from being exhaustive and complete five years from now. The problem, then, is that this will be in primary legislation. The noble Lord should surely accept that when we discuss an issue of process there has to be some element of flexibility to it. That is why I ask him to think again about how prescriptive this particular part of the Bill should be and to reconsider his amendment.

Lord Greaves: The Minister convinces me that the amendment is right. If he reads the list carefully, he will find that it does not in any way prevent future flexibility; it is specifically written in general and generic terms so that exactly the people who need to be on the list can be put on it in the future. The decision will be the Secretary of State's. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment A337 withdrawn.
	House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.35 pm.

Categories of Gaming Machine (Amendment) Regulations 2009

Copy of the Regulations
	JCSI 9th Report

Motion to Approve

Moved By Lord Carter of Barnes
	That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10 March be approved.
	Relevant Document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Lord Carter of Barnes: My Lords, with permission, I beg to move the Motion on the Order Paper. We are debating this evening the draft Categories of Gaming Machine (Amendment) Regulations 2009. These regulations are intended to increase the stake and prize limits for all category C gaming machines, and for only specified types of category D machines.
	Last year the Government received numerous representations in support of seaside arcades, which were struggling under difficult trading conditions. As noble Lords will be aware, the economic climate has not improved and many businesses continue to struggle. For example, arcade revenue is down by 21 per cent, with over 170 reported closures since July 2007, resulting in nearly 1,000 jobs lost. Manufacturing output of gaming machines is down 55 per cent since 2005, with nearly 300 jobs lost since 2007. Seaside arcades offer soft gambling environments. They are not permitted to offer higher prize gaming machines, and they form an integral part of many families' holidays. It is for these reasons the Government wish to see them prosper and continue.
	That is why, on 25 June 2008, the Government announced that to examine the case for providing economic assistance to seaside arcades, as well as pubs and clubs, they would bring forward a review of stake and prize limits in respect of low-prize category C and D machines. Following an initial consultation exercise, the Government were persuaded that a modest increase in stake and prize levels was appropriate. They remain confident that such an increase will not risk the licensing objectives in the Gambling Act, which are rightly cast in terms of protecting children and vulnerable adults from being harmed or exploited by gambling.
	I turn first to category C gaming machines. The maximum stake for a category C machine is currently set at 50 pence, with the maximum prize set at £35. These regulations will increase the stake limit to £1 and the prize limit to £70. Noble Lords will know that the Government consulted publicly on a number of options last August, with the preferred option being to increase the stake limit to 60 pence and the prize limit to £60, compared to the proposal of £1 and £70. It was felt at the time that a 100 per cent increase in stake and prize levels might be difficult to reconcile with the precautionary approach already taken to the implementation of the Gambling Act 2005 as a whole.
	The Government were concerned that prize levels of £70 or more might take category C gaming machines in the direction of harder gaming machines, unless accompanied by additional restrictions on game speed and features. They did not want to see the important distinctions between harder and softer gaming machines eroded. However, responses to the consultation made it clear that 60 pence and £60 limits would not have the necessary benefit for the operators of seaside arcades or machine manufacturers in the way that was hoped or judged to be needed. It was unlikely, in particular, that such limits would generate adequate new business for machine manufacturers and suppliers. Market research showed that moving away from the present stake-to-prize ratio of 1:70 would deter players. That meant that as well as being unattractive to players, the limits would be too low to provide incentives for manufacturers to develop new machines and for operators to replace legacy machines. Therefore, after discussions with a number of trade associations, the Government accepted that limits of £1 and £70 for category C machines would be more practical and economically beneficial to operators and manufacturers.
	The availability of higher prize category C machines is more likely to encourage operators to replace their legacy machines with new machines. This will help to invigorate the manufacturing market, which I described earlier as having a challenging time. It will also enable manufacturers to provide a range of appealing games as an alternative to the higher prize, harder gambling, category B machines. By not alienating players who might be interested in multi-stake and multi-prize machines, a £1 stake to £70 prize limit offers a real incentive to operators of soft gambling environments, such as seaside arcades, to refrain from splitting existing premises to gain a higher proportion of category B machines.
	The Government also took into account advice from the Gambling Commission that, in the wider context of problem gambling, changes of up to £1 in stake would not pose a significant threat to the licensing objectives, provided appropriate controls on machine standards were put in place. The Gambling Commission is doing just that and the Government are confident that these revised standards will help to allay any concerns raised during the consultations.
	I turn now to category D machines. These regulations do not affect money prize machines—that is, the lowest prize category of fruit machines. Instead, they are intended to increase the stake and prize limits for so-called crane-grabs and coin-pusher machines, also known in the trade as penny falls. These types of machine are a much present element of seaside arcades, and playing them also forms an enjoyable part of many families' weekend and holiday activities.
	At present, coin-pusher machines have a maximum stake limit of 10p and a maximum total prize of £8, of which £5 can be cash and up to the value of £3 can be non-cash. This has enabled operators of such games to include small non-cash prizes to vary the offer and the attractiveness of these machines. During the first public consultation there were no representations in relation to coin-pusher machines that warranted any change to the Government's original view. They remain satisfied that any increase will not jeopardise the licensing objectives. Therefore, under these regulations the maximum stake for coin-pusher machines will remain at 10p, while the maximum prize will increase to £15, of which £8 can be a money prize.
	For crane-grab machines, the maximum stake is currently set at 30p, with the maximum prize value set at £8. These regulations will increase the stake limit to £1 and the prize limit to £50. Back in August the Government originally consulted on a revised limit of 50p and £30 for this type of machine. The primary reason for this was caution, given the appeal of these machines to children. However, following the consultation, it became clear that these proposals, while not endangering the licensing objectives, would not provide the benefit to seaside arcades that had been hoped. After discussions with a number of trade associations, the Government accepted that stake and prize limits higher than those initially proposed would enable operators to offer more attractive prize items such as PlayStation and Xbox games, mobile phones and iPod Shuffles. As a parent, I know that we must, however reluctantly at times, accept that tastes for prizes have grown more sophisticated over the past decade or so. By allowing seaside arcades to offer such prizes, these regulations will go a long way to help them to address the difficult economic position in which they find themselves and to keep themselves commercially attractive. That is why it was felt that on balance that £1 and £50 limits would be more appropriate. The Government are reassured that this increase, when considered within the overall context of the regulatory regime, will not undermine the licensing objectives. Also, raising the limit of crane grabs to £1 will not be a price increase in the conventional sense. Rather, operators will continue to offer a range of stakes and prizes, from a 10p stake and a £1 prize upwards, with the average stake likely to be 33p or less. This will give operators the opportunity to offer the choice that their customers wish.
	I know that some here this evening will have concerns about the stake and prize limits for category C and category D gaming machines being increased at all and, indeed, to these levels. I would like to comment on those concerns as they have featured largely in our decision-making. It is appropriate to reiterate that protection of children and the vulnerable from the potential harm of problem gambling remains central to the Government's approach to gambling and gambling regulation. That is why the decision was made to consult again on the revised proposals in December last year and to conduct that consultation clearly and over time to a degree for which we have been criticised for not concluding in advance of the Easter season.
	The Government felt it important that all stakeholders who might be concerned about the risks to problem gambling should have another opportunity to voice their opinions. In particular, representatives from the faith groups were invited to a meeting during the consultation period so that their concerns could be heard and understood at first-hand. The Government took those views into account when deciding on the current proposals. Increasing the stake and prize limits for low-prize gaming machines does not represent a relaxation of the regulatory regime, nor should these proposals be viewed in isolation. Instead, they must be considered within the context of the regulatory regime put in place by the Gambling Act 2005.
	All categories of gaming machines must comply with strict regulations and equally strict technical standards. To ensure that the distinction between category C and higher category B gaming machines does not become blurred, the Gambling Commission is proposing to amend the technical standards in respect of speed of play and linked games for category C gaming machines. Revised standards to this effect were notified to the European Commission on 10 March. Indeed, the Government sought the advice of the Gambling Commission early on in this process. It is its view that, in the wider context of problem gambling, changes in stake limits of up to £1 will not pose a significant threat to the licensing objectives provided that appropriate controls are put in place. Also, through operating licences the Gambling Commission licenses and regulates all those who manufacture, supply, install, maintain, adapt or repair gaming machines. In addition, further protections for consumers are secured through the Gambling Commission's licence conditions and code of practice, which include specific provision in relation to underage gambling and problem gambling through requirements in respect of supervision, access, staff training and self-exclusion.
	Noble Lords will know that some stakeholders, including faith groups, have been critical of these proposals. They are concerned that the Government appear to be endorsing ever higher levels of gambling when economic conditions mean people might have less money to spend. That is not the case. The Government have listened to the case made by the gambling industry but they have also taken on board the concerns that have been raised in all the consultations carried out in relation to these regulations. Stakes and prizes form only a small part of the overall regulatory and protection regime created by the Gambling Act and these proposals, when considered within their overall context, do not jeopardise the licensing objectives. To ensure that this remains the case, the Government will, of course, monitor the implementation of these regulations.
	It is important to reiterate that, for the majority of people, gambling in this form is an entertaining and entertainment pastime that presents not problems but rather enjoyment and reward. These regulations are designed to ensure that operators at the softer end of the gambling industry, particularly seaside arcades but also pubs and clubs, are able to manage in difficult trading conditions and increasingly competitive markets, but only in so far as the licensing objectives are preserved. It should be made clear that continually increasing stake and prize levels is not the only answer to the pressures faced by operators and manufacturers. The industry must explore—and, indeed, is exploring—other ways to freshen its appeal.
	That said, the Government are in a position to provide some limited help. They recognise that there is a need to protect jobs and to support a challenged industry in unprecedentedly difficult times. However, there is also an obligation on them to ensure that vulnerable people, particularly children, are protected from the potential harm that excessive gambling can cause. The licensing objectives are therefore non-negotiable. Stake and prize levels for category C and certain types of category D machines are being increased to assist the industry, but only because the Government are satisfied that the licensing objectives will not be prejudiced by so doing. Noble Lords can be assured that the Government have not been cavalier with the concerns raised by faith groups and other stakeholders during this process. They have been listened to and their concerns have been considered and taken into account. Overall, the Government are satisfied that the proposed changes will give the industry the lift it genuinely needs without undermining the precautionary principle adopted throughout the implementation of the 2005 Act. It is for these reasons that I commend these regulations to the House.

Lord Luke: My Lords, we on these Benches agree by and large with these changes, as they will help the UK gaming industry, but deplore the fact that the Government have ignored the more urgent calls for category B3 machine changes and have failed to review the muddle of UK gambling as a whole. They have said that they will consult on category B machines but, to help the industry, that should already have been done. The Government are avoiding the much bigger challenges we face in the UK gambling market. Not least, they should be looking at the use of fixed-odds betting terminals. Have they appreciated that FOBTs provide a much more dangerous form of gambling? Indeed, the particular dangers of these terminals has inspired their nickname of the crack cocaine of gambling. Surely that would not have happened unless they were dangerous.
	One key objective of the Gambling Act 2005 was to protect vulnerable people from being harmed by gambling. However, because of the inadequate legislation, gamblers are being forced steadily away from gaming arcades, which have a low problem-gambling rate—just 3 per cent of players—to betting shops, which have a much higher rate, at 11 per cent of players.
	Conservatives support people's right to enjoy gambling as a form of entertainment, providing the appropriate safeguards are in place to protect vulnerable players. My colleague Tobias Ellwood MP, the shadow Minister with responsibility for gambling issues, has stated:
	"The Government has let down not just the bingo and arcade industry that employs so many people but also the local economies that those arcades are part of".
	He has also announced that an incoming Conservative Government would reverse the most damaging aspects of the Gambling Act 2005.

Lord Addington: My Lords, if you look at these regulations, there is not much to argue about, unless you disagree fundamentally with the idea of gambling as a form of entertainment. Issues have been raised about whether the gambling legislation that we have needs a complete review, and whether much of the structure has gone wrong. However, I shall put away that sword for another day.
	We are talking about making a series of small changes at the softer end of gambling, which is being hit hard. We are talking about making category C machines more profitable, by giving people an inducement to invest in them by making them more fun to play. I remember a conversation a good few years ago with a friend in a pub who was pumping money into a machine. I said, "You didn't get anything back". He said, "Yes, but I had a good game". The attraction was the element of chance, and playing the nudge backwards and forwards. I appreciate that the Minister is trying to make a high enough profit margin for these machines to keep them interesting and keep them used. They are also used to subsidise things like pubs and other forms of club activity.
	I do not have a fundamental problem here, but is this enough? Has it been done soon enough? I do not know. I feel a degree of sympathy for the Government. They are in that horrible cleft-stick position: do we consult or do we act quickly? I am afraid that they will get splinters either way—on what part of their anatomy is down to the skill of the Minister in question. Let us just say that there is no right answer here, merely the best one that you can make at the time.
	What has happened here? When it comes to grab machines and penny-fall machines, my experience of them as a small child in fairs was that they grabbed nothing and gave you nothing, so you might as well have just given them your money. Making them actually work, I suggest, would be the first step forward.
	I do not have a fundamental problem with this and neither do the majority of my colleagues. However, we might be dealing with a symptom rather than the main problem of the decline of much of our seaside soft gambling and machine industry.

The Lord Bishop of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his speech, which put the arguments so clearly. I am sorry that the Government did not keep to their initial thoughts, but bowed to pressure from the gaming industry to raise the size of the stakes and prizes. There were several references to putting appropriate controls in place. I am not clear what those are and whether they would work. I, too, played some of these penny-fall machines as a child, and indeed have done occasionally since—with much the same results as the noble Lord.
	I am completely at a loss to know why we pass laws that seem to encourage the gaming industry to expand—and I believe that this legislation does that. We have also had battles over the Manchester supercasino, which certainly did that. Why do we encourage this? We know that gambling and gaming so easily become addictive, and that they harm both individuals and society. That is why a coalition of faith bodies is opposed to this legislation.
	The Minister spoke eloquently about listening to these groups, but it does not seem that their concerns have really been taken into account. There is evidence from Canada, Australia and New Zealand that at least one-third of the profits of gaming come from at-risk or problem gamblers. That is not entertainment. The Minister argued that there would be no significant increase through these proposals; that remains to be seen. I believe that they will increase problem gambling in a time of recession, and vulnerable people will be most affected. The 2007 gambling prevalence study showed that those on lower incomes have higher rates of problem gambling. We have a duty, as the Minister said, towards the vulnerable and towards children.
	There has already been a threefold increase in stakes since 1997. The increase proposed is neither proportionate nor modest; it is well above the rate of inflation. The argument that children can access these machines because stakes and prizes are low, which was put in 2005, will no longer be the case. Children are being sacrificed to the demands of seaside arcades. Children will be able to accept prizes worth £50 and £70. These are getting close to hard gambling numbers, as the Minister said.
	It was promised in 2005 that there would be research into whether higher stakes and prizes led to an increase in problem gambling. None has been forthcoming. There was a promise from Tessa Jowell that there would be no further liberalisation until proper research was done. Recently, the Gambling Commission released a study that confirmed the strong relationship between problem gambling—including slot-machine gambling—and high alcohol consumption. Could we have research into how many alcohol-related deaths are also linked to gaming and gambling?
	It is a laudable aim to seek to stem the decline of our seaside towns. However, the way to do this is to encourage healthy activities for families. Playing fruit machines and gaming machines are largely individual pursuits, not things that families enjoy doing together. A similar argument applies to pubs. We want the English pub to thrive, but the income that landlords make from gaming machines is tiny compared with the annual turnover. Increasing stakes and prizes will not save pubs. What will save them are high-quality meals, social activities like quizzes and enough space in our overworked lives to go out and enjoy ourselves—because we live in a culture of overwork.
	Voting for these regulations encourages the gaming industry to grow and expand, when much of the Christian church thinks it would be better for our nation if it contracted. At a time when we take issues of health and family cohesion very seriously—the Prime Minister repeatedly speaks of robust values—this is a step in the wrong direction that will make the vulnerable more vulnerable.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, as someone who spent a lot of time on the passing of the Gambling Act 2005, and from the word go had considerable concerns about the dangers of children being exposed to unnecessary risks, I have considerable sympathy for what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle has just said. There must have been better ways of spending the money in difficult times and difficult areas—ways that might have been of greater benefit to the whole community, rather than just to the gambling few.
	The amount by which the prizes have gone up seems considerable. We have heard little to assuage the worry that many people have that the younger you start getting involved in gambling, the more likely you are to become a problem gambler. The evidence that we have been sent from Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where one-third of profits from gaming machines come from at-risk or problem gamblers, ought to give us pause before we pour yet more money in these directions. It is very difficult to see a proper way forward here. I reiterate my sadness that money which rightly should be going to help poorer communities in this appalling economic climate has gone in this particular direction.

Baroness Golding: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Betting and Gaming Group, which has spent a lot of time looking at betting and gaming. The Minister asked us to look at the impact of the Gambling Act on gaming machines, and we did so. Perhaps I should also declare an interest and say that I like gambling. I gamble within my means; I enjoy it and I talk to lots of people who like it and who are not problem gamblers. It is time that we spoke up for people who cause us no trouble whatever as well as for people who cause us trouble.
	In response to our request for evidence, the group received almost 150 submissions, the overwhelming majority of which said that many problems were created by the 2005 Act which only the Government could put right. Many people reminded us that hard cases make bad law and suggested that we should try to legislate so that we cover only problem gamblers, rather than preventing people enjoying something that they enjoy. They can afford to enjoy it, and they have worked hard to be able to spend the money that they earn in the way that they wish.
	Although a number of respondents blamed the category B2/B3 machines—so-called FOBTs—for enticing away their trade, we were not provided with any evidence of this. Neither, despite repeated suggestions that category B2/B3 machines are an increased source of problem gambling, were we provided with any hard evidence to support these suggestions. Until we see evidence to the contrary, any changes to the present regulations governing category B2/B3 machines are unwarranted. I am certain that the Gambling Commission will be keeping a close eye on this and that the moment that it sees something going wrong with such machines it will immediately jump up with some proposals.
	We do, however, agree that bookmakers have a significant advantage over the operators of, for example, seaside arcades, who depend on machines for their livelihood. Much more needs to be done as a matter of urgency to help these operators who do not operate betting shops, or many will not survive much longer. The latest figures given by the Minister prove that arcades, especially in seaside areas, are going out of business.
	More than one respondent drew our attention to the perceived high cost of the Gambling Commission's offices in Birmingham and the increased staff. They felt that, despite all the money spent, there was a poor level of service. We do not agree with that, but it was their point of view. This was causing them extreme difficulties, and resentment was building up in the industry.
	We received lots of evidence of job losses in the gaming machine industry. The blame for this was being laid at the door of the Government, for not understanding the gaming industry in the way that they should have before the legislation went through. However, we welcome this small step, which we hope will help the gaming industry. We think that it has come a little too late, but nevertheless it has come.

Lord Carter of Barnes: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for taking part in the debate this evening. It is fair to say that the contributions reflected the broad spectrum of opinion that the Government received during the consultation process. I am not going to join the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in speculating about which part of the Government's, or my own, anatomy is relevant here, or in speculating about whether this is enough, too late, too little, whether there should be more, or whether there should be any at all. Suffice it to say that the Government have sought to strike a balance between these understandably competing views.
	I shall answer some of the specific questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, if I understood correctly, was suggesting that in some way, shape or form public money was being invested in these areas. That is not the case. We are providing a relaxation and, one could argue, liberalisation, to allow the operators to become more commercially attractive and more competitive, but this is in no way, shape or form government money, let alone more government money.
	The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether this is enough or whether it is too late. We believe that we have moved things on as quickly as we could and as we should. I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, that there are many voices in the industry which would like to see more and would like to see it faster. The Government are trying to get the balance right. The Gambling Act is relatively new legislation. I do not think that it is a legitimate criticism from the noble Lord, Lord Luke, to suggest that it is in a muddle and it is time for a review. We do not know enough yet to know whether we should be reviewing what was essentially a new regime that was put in place. He and his colleagues in the other place may have the view that now is the time to reverse the more damaging aspects of the 2005 Act. The Government's view is that we do not yet know enough to be able to make those determinative judgments.
	We thought that it was right to take the time to consider the concerns raised by groups in consultation, and we also needed to take the time to ensure that the changes to individual areas were consistent with the overall licensing objectives that were a central part of the 2005 regime. We would not describe that as a muddle in the market; we would describe it as a balance in the regime, hence the reason for taking the time that was asked for.
	The right reverend Prelate asked questions around whether this is a contradiction of the comments, or possibly the promises, that the previous Secretary of State had made on this measure. This is not a relaxation in any way, shape or form of the regulatory regime. The regulations, as I said in my opening remarks, need to be considered in the context of the whole regime. The increases are being enacted via secondary legislation. Although I was not involved in the debate at the time—I was an observer—I think that the Government were referring to those aspects that were debated in Parliament through the Bill, which is the overarching regulatory regime. I was reassured to hear that the right reverend Prelate has participated in penny-falls and crane-grabs, not least because I am a parent. It would be inappropriate for a government Minister to make an observation on the odds of that crane actually ever bringing anything to the point where it gets dropped into the waiting hands of the paying customer. Nevertheless, it is the case that there is a clear level of customer satisfaction and enjoyment.
	For what it is worth, I am not a gambler, at least not in the financial sense of that word, but I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, that gambling is an entertainment activity that for many millions of people is a very legitimate form of controlled and balanced entertainment and satisfaction. It is entirely appropriate for this House to speak up for that vibrant and thriving industry.
	It is clear that the arcade operators need to find a route to competition. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was making that point about the real attractiveness of those operations. Clearly, we need to get the balance right between the arcade operators and what might be called the harder gambling environments. We do not believe for a second that this provision answers all of those problems, but it will contribute to the industry's ability to reinvent itself and make it competitive.
	The noble Lord, Lord Luke, asked why we had not looked at category B3 machines. Our view is that we brought forward this particular issue exceptionally to look at category C and D machines. I think that we have made it clear to the industry that we are not yet convinced that a sufficient case has been made for increasing the category B entitlement. If we were bringing that to the House today, considerably stronger voices would be raised saying that that case has not been made. I feel comfortable that the Government are in the right place on those issues.
	Overall, gambling is a delicate area but not a difficult one. We need to get the balance right and these are small changes for a particular area of commercial activity. We do not for a second believe that this will reinvigorate the English seaside resort. However, as a regular attendee of UK seaside resorts, I think that it would be fair to point to the improvements made over the past 12 to 15 years in water quality and the bathing environment, in the quality of meals in pubs and in the opportunity for people to enjoy that holiday environment—not to mention the competitiveness of sterling, which is making UK resorts ever more attractive. This small measure will, we hope, allow our seaside arcades to make themselves more attractive, more competitive and more commercially viable.
	Motion agreed.
	Sitting suspended.

Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

Copy of Bill
	Explanatory Notes
	Amendments
	1st Report Delegated Powers Committee
	1st Report Constitution Committee
	11th Report Joint Committee Human Rights

Committee (11th Day) (Continued)

Amendment A337A
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	A337A: Clause 292, page 179, line 33, leave out "take reasonable steps to"

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: As I mentioned before the break, my amendments in this group strengthen slightly the consultation requirements on Natural England when preparing its report. My first two amendments probe the consultation with those with a relevant interest in the land. We have talked about the definition of that. Given the rather tighter definition of relevant interest that the Government insist on in the Bill, as opposed to the CROW Act, the number of consultees will not necessarily be as high. I should like some assurances that Natural England will do all that it can to seek out the views of those who are not large landowners or are not plugged into national or even local organisations so that they are involved in the development of the legislation. They may not even know about the development of this route and will certainly not know that they need to keep an eye out for what is proposed by Natural England.
	National and local organisations will also be important. The briefings that Peers on all sides have received from some of them show how useful they can be in identifying the concerns of both potential users and those who will be affected. To ignore them would be a big mistake. My third amendment would ensure that they, too, are consulted properly during the preparatory stages. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: My Amendment 338A is in this group. In page 179, line 42, it would leave out paragraph (e). It is a probing amendment. My noble friend talked earlier about the whole question of the MoD and MoD land and the possibility of access land. The reason for my amendment is to ask the Minister how Natural England will know what available land falls within the national security category. It is also linked with new Section 55D(6)(b). Will Natural England be able to explain any exclusions or restrictions resulting from defence or national security considerations? If not, what price openness and transparency? Between the two provisions, it seems that any military land that may be used or opened up for access could in the first instance not to be known to Natural England. I suspect that it would be known to local authorities, but it does not say that in the Bill; it just refers to Natural England and the Secretary of State. That is the reason for my first amendment.
	My name is linked to the second amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, which concerns Statutory Instrument 1993/12. The list in that statutory instrument works well at present. It is simple; it is well known to everybody; it has 10 people to consult in all. They are: the Auto Cycle Union, the British Horse Society, the Byways and Bridleways Trust, the Open Spaces Society, the Ramblers' Association, the British Driving Society, the Cyclist Touring Club, the Peak and Northern Footpaths Society, the Chiltern Society and the Welsh Trail Riders Association. It seems odd, if something is working well, that it will not be included. I am happy to support that amendment as well.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. We have had some discussion about these issues on the previous amendments. There is a requirement on Natural England to consult various relevant bodies before drawing up the report, in addition to the persons already included in Section 51(4) of the 1949 Act, which include the national park authority, joint planning board, county council and county district through whose park or area the route may pass. So I would be surprised, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, perhaps partially conceded, if people were not aware of the issue of the coastal path—certainly as far as these representative organisations are concerned. I do not see how Natural England could be in any position other than being fully appraised of local considerations in those matters. We have the key local bodies listed.
	The problem with Amendments A337A and A338, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is that, rather than having to take reasonable steps to consult and notify persons with a relevant interest in affected land, Natural England would be required to consult all such persons in preparing its report. Now who are these persons? We do not have, in England, a land register, so we might be imposing on Natural England a task which is actually an impossible burden. If we say "all" in the legislation—all land interests—then the body would be open to challenge if it failed in any respect with regard to a part of the coastal path. That is not just an onerous task: it is a burden which Natural England could not accept and carry out, even in the best possible faith, because of the problem of identification. What we will do is provide regulations requiring Natural England to give those with a relevant interest an opportunity to make representations on its report once it has prepared one. That is certainly our intention.
	Amendments A338ZA and A340, along with Amendment A339, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, seek to insert other bodies into the list, including charities and organisations set out in Schedule 6 to the Wildlife and Countryside (Definitive Maps and Statements) Regulations 1993. Amendment A338A would remove the requirement to consult the Secretary of State on defence and national security interests. I do not think we could accept that proposition. The MoD owns quite a lot of land which is close to the coast, and surely it is right and appropriate for Natural England to consult the ministry when drawing up its report. There are significant problems with that land, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, identified. I am thinking of the Dorset position, for example. Those are the issues that apply with regard to restrictions. We would obviously expect the Secretary of State for Defence to be consulted about these matters.
	The organisations listed in Schedule 6 will have an opportunity to make representations on the report when it is completed but I do not think that we could require Natural England to consult them at the initial stage. If Natural England considers that such bodies have particular knowledge or that they can make a particular input at the initial stage, I am sure it will recognise that it is in its interests to consult them. However, that is different from making the issues mandatory in the Bill. I am not seeking to decry the significance of these organisations, nor am I saying that the likelihood is that their interests will be ignored. However, there is a difference between Natural England seeking to consult them about the report, when published, and being obliged to do so in the Bill at the initial stage.
	I recognise the significance of anyone with an interest in land, and I very much appreciate the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. However, we cannot put an obligation on Natural England which it cannot be guaranteed to fulfil, and I do not consider that it would be able to meet the requirement suggested in the amendment.
	I turn to the consultation list to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred and the list that she read out. These bodies can make their issues known to Natural England during consultation, but she will recognise that that list is derived from legislation which sought to achieve other, although related, objectives. There is nothing to stop these bodies making their views known to Natural England, as they will no doubt do, and there is nothing to stop them making representations, which will be summarised by Natural England and put before the Secretary of State. However, that is a little different from translating a list of organisations from one piece of legislation where they were listed because of the nature of that legislation.
	Natural England has been working with Defence Estates on issues of appropriate access. In the concept of this coastal path, questions must be asked of landowners and the Ministry of Defence is significant in that respect. It is right that questions are asked about access which may, in the view of noble Lords, have been particularly restrictive in the past, although I have no doubt that my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence would emphasise the extent to which they have sought to minimise restrictions on the public. Natural England has been working with Defence Estates to clarify the question of defence land being available for the coastal path as far as possible. There may just be circumstances where it is not possible, but Natural England is already considering that matter because we recognise the strength of the noble Baroness's case.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for giving way. It is clearly a practical problem: some of the information is very sensitive and obviously should not be in the public domain. However, if there is to be a coastal route, surely people will ask why it does or does not go across particular areas, and that is why I raised that.
	On the other issue, the trouble is that, once you have a list of those whom Natural England must consult, it becomes clear that there are those who are not included. Indeed, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, to which my name is added, clearly reflects that they are not included. I accept that this is always a difficult matter but I gather that there are only 10 people in all. It would have been a fairly simple task, involving, I believe, about seven letters, but it would have been worth doing. I heard what the Minister said but it is on the first point that I am sensitive to the difficulties that the Government face. Clearly, it does not matter if some of this information is in the public domain but with some of it, it obviously does.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness because none of us can envisage the concept of the coastal path without appreciating that it does involve defence land. The question is how those conflicting issues can be resolved and, of course, some of them are very sensitive indeed. I wish to reassure all noble Lords that Natural England knows this to be a challenge and has already begun work.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the Minister for his response. To some extent I can understand his reluctance to see a requirement in the Bill, but planning law and compulsory purchase law are full of obligations on public bodies to make contact with people who are affected, even if it is putting notices on telegraph poles to make them aware of what is going on. The principle behind my amendments is that it is important that we involve all the parties at the earliest possible stage. Getting people involved makes it so much easier and avoids differences of opinion after the event. It is far better to have the advice, help, assistance and guidance of interested parties at the earliest stage. I note what the Minister says and I am particularly interested in what he had to say about defence land. There are other key installation sites which are coastally situated which, I am sure, also have a bearing on all this, but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
	Amendment A337A withdrawn.
	Amendments A338 to A341 not moved.
	Amendment A342
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	A342: Clause 292, page 180, line 29, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Lord Greaves: We are here talking about what happens when the final report is sent out. In moving Amendment A342, I shall speak also to many more in this group, which also contains a government amendment and various Conservative amendments. This is really about who is consulted when Natural England produces what I think it calls a "final report" for a particular piece of coast, after it has done all its work, and presented its proposals to the Secretary of State. The amendments in this group amount to the mother of all lists. Amendment A342, however, is slightly different. The Bill says that the Secretary of State "may" make regulations in relation to the consultation processes. We are saying that the Secretary of State "shall" make regulations in relation to the consultation processes. No doubt these regulations are going to be made and therefore there is no reason why the regulation should not describe what "shall" happen and not what "may" happen. Amendment A343A is the first of a number of amendments that add to the list of organisations and persons who, when a report is sent to the Secretary of State, have to be consulted and given the opportunity to make representations to Natural England and then on to the Secretary of State. This is an important group. Amendment A343A refers to,
	"any other principal local authority whose area includes the whole or part of the area to which the report relates ... a parish council or parish meeting",
	which is in a similar position.
	This provision is important not just because these elected local bodies ought to be consulted, informed about what has happened and given the opportunity to make representations. Principal local authorities, whether they are counties, districts, unitaries or anything else, and parish councils are, in their own right, recreation and leisure authorities. Not to consult them on a major recreation and leisure facility being proposed in their area would be wrong. Many of them are also planning authorities and, again, not to consult them on a major change in land use in their area would be wrong. So they should be included. However many others should or should not be included, principal local authorities and parish councils should be—not just access authorities which have direct responsibility for access provision.
	Amendment A344 is a consequential amendment. Amendment A345, tabled by my noble friend Lord Tyler, is about the Youth Hostels Association. Amendment A346 lists,
	"the British Association of Shooting and Conservation ... the British Mountaineering Council ... the Country Land and Business Association ... the National Farmers' Union ... the Open Spaces Society, and ... the Ramblers' Association",
	which are in CROW legislation. We suggest that they should be listed here too.
	Amendment A349 concerns,
	"charities or organisations which would be affected by the regulations".
	Amendment A349A, which refers to,
	"any person or body that Natural England considers to have a reasonable interest in the matter",
	concerns flexibility, not the rigidity of which we were accused as regards the last amendment before the dinner break. Amendment A349B refers to "any resident". Clearly, residents do not have to be written to individually, but there are plenty of ways to advertise so that residents know what is going on. Amendment A349C refers to,
	"any other body or person".
	Anyone who feels that they wish to contribute should be able to do so and Natural England should have to consider their comments. Some of these amendments clearly are probing in the sense that they overlap.
	Amendments A352 and A358 simply are further references to charities and are consequential on the first reference to them. I do not think that I have to explain any further why these organisations and bodies should be consulted. Their names and positions make that self evident. I beg to move.

Lord Judd: If we were in another sort of organisation other than being part of the formal political system in the House of Lords, there might be an arrangement whereby my amendment could be put to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who I think probably would say that he warmly accepted it, but that is not how we operate. I simply want to make one point and, in doing so, I should emphasise that in an honorary capacity I have the privilege of being a vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks and a president of the Friends of the Lake District, which represents CPRE in the whole of Cumbria. If we are going to ensure that those organisations, which have been so well listed in Amendment A346, are consulted, these two bodies really ought to be included, whatever has or has not been the case in existing legislation. Both of them do sterling work in the interests of preserving the countryside and making it accessible to the public, and both are based on a range of locally based societies that draw together people in the community who have a sense of responsibility towards these areas. Both show a great deal of imagination in carrying forward the work day after day throughout the year, and I argue simply that if there is to be a list—there is a great deal to be said for having a list of this kind—it would be odd if these two organisations were not included.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: To some extent, we rehearsed this argument in our debate on the previous set of amendments. Indeed, my Amendments A350B and A351A to A351C relate to the efforts that the Secretary of State must make to notify relevant people about the final result of the report. To the extent that they do so, they probe how far the Government intend the consultations to go. As I suggested in our debate on the amendments dealing with consulting those with a relevant interest, merely putting up a notice in a local authority office and expecting people to know how to check it might not be sufficient. Similarly, I cannot imagine a circumstance in which it would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to publish his determination in a way that brings it to people's attention.
	Amendment A351D, like Amendment A352 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, again suggests that relevant charities and organisations should be considered to have a relevant interest. In general, it seems sensible to take as many views from as many relevant people as possible. As we have said, charities and similar organisations could have valuable knowledge of problems that might arise.
	The number of amendments tabled that would add various bodies to the list in new Section 55E(2) shows the Committee's concern that this list is not exclusionary. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that representations will be read from anyone who might be interested. If a representation is clearly spurious or irrelevant, Natural England just needs to note that in its response.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I entirely agree with the latter point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
	I shall deal first with Amendment A342 and the question of whether the Secretary of State has the discretion to make such regulations. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the Secretary of State has every intention of making such regulations and for those regulations to be in place before the process of implementing the route begins. It is a "may/must", "shall/will" argument. There is no problem with the use of "may", but I hope that I have given the necessary assurance from the Dispatch Box on that matter.
	I will come to Amendments A343A, A344 to A346, A349 and A349A in a moment. Amendment A352 would add charities or organisations to the list of relevant interested bodies that must be notified of the Secretary of State's determinations under new Section 55E(6). Amendment A358 would add a definition of a charity. Amendment A347, in the name of my noble friend Lord Judd, would add two organisations to the list of those to be consulted before the report is drawn up.
	As a general statement of intent, the provisions in the Bill are designed to provide a procedure that ensures that Natural England will consult a range of local interests before preparing a report on any proposed coastal route. The list of those who can make representations to Natural England on the coastal access report is limited to those who have a particular interest or role to play in the context of the area that will be affected. We have not listed non-governmental organisations as statutory consultees in any area of the Bill. Such lists quickly become out of date as the bodies to be consulted change over time, and amending primary legislation is not straightforward, as we all know. Moreover, there is always the problem that a list can be perceived as exclusive and capable of setting some stakeholders higher than others in influence. However, I hope that I can assure noble Lords that Natural England's intentions are to consult as widely as possible. The Bill provides for regulations to be made specifying how its draft report is to be published and the manner in which representations may be made.
	On Amendment A346, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the listing of bodies, those bodies are set out in a number of regulations made under the CROW Act but are not listed in the Act itself. It is worth pointing out the bodies that must be consulted by Natural England before it prepares its report for the Secretary of State. I refer to Section 51(4) of the 1949 Act, which makes it clear that before preparing a report, Natural England must consult every national park authority, joint planning board and county district council through whose park or area the route passes. In addition, new Section 55D(4) requires Natural England to take a number of steps and to consult a number of bodies. That, I think, meets noble Lords' requirements for wide consultation.
	I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about parish councils, but the point is that they have no direct responsibilities for access. However, although they are not listed, they will have an opportunity to comment if they wish. Indeed, that reflects the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, about people and organisations which may not be listed anywhere but nevertheless still have a legitimate right to make representations. I would have thought that parish councils fall within that category.
	Amendment A350ZZA would require a provision that regulations may be made that include a requirement that representations should be made on the question of whether Natural England's report fulfils the requirements of its coastal access duty in Sections 286 and 287. The Secretary of State will make a determination of Natural England's report, and the fulfilment of these duties will be the principal issue that he has to consider.
	Amendment A350B would require the Secretary of State to notify persons with a relevant interest in affected land of his determination of Natural England's report. I want to assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State will do all he can to notify such persons. I understand and accept the point he raises, but it is unrealistic to expect him to notify everyone, and in certain circumstances it may be impossible to trace the owner of the land and thus fulfil his duty. However, we will ensure that every effort is made.
	Amendments A351A to A351C propose changes to the way in which the Secretary of State might publish his determination. I believe that the current provisions provide some flexibility for the Secretary of State and, in the circumstances, are appropriate. Any charity would already be notified if it was the owner of affected land, and I do not consider a change such as that proposed in A351D to be required. However, I understand that the point of these amendments is to ensure that the consultation process is as wide as possible; that Natural England takes account of all the views expressed; and that it makes every effort to engage with consultees and establish communications with persons with relevant interests. I understand that some of it is to do with the wording of the Bill, but it is also to do with the practice of Natural England. I can assure noble Lords that the sentiment behind these amendments will be drawn to Natural England's attention. As I said, the Secretary of State, in making a determination on these duties, will have regard to the question of whether representations have been made and the way in which Natural England has dealt with them.

Lord Judd: I do not think that anyone could question the good faith of my noble friend or his colleagues in government on this matter. However, I draw his attention to one point. He emphasised that under existing arrangements, the national park authorities should be consulted. My point was that the Campaign for National Parks, made up of voluntary bodies throughout the country, each one based in the area of a particular national park, and the Campaign to Protect Rural England, with its locally based activities, are not the same as the statutory body. They are much more akin to the organisations listed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his amendment. I simply ask my noble friend, if he is looking at how this might be covered in regulations, to take my point.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My noble friend will have heard my response that we have not listed non-statutory consultees, but I certainly take his point about wishing to have a wider consultation. I have no doubt that the two organisations he mentions will wish to play an important part in that.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Concerning the voluntary organisations which might be affected, there is quite a different tack needed for permanent campsites for the Scouts, Guides and youth clubs. They simply would not be able to operate if the public was passing quite close. This is a big issue nowadays in those organisations and one would have to make sure they were happy about the arrangements.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I wish noble Lords could have been present when we met organisations with an interest in this Bill. It is so long ago, I cannot remember when it was. The conference room at Defra was full. I do not know if the Scouts or similar organisations were present, but they have a perfectly legitimate interest in these matters. When they make representations or respond to consultation documents, I am sure they will be listened to carefully. We are always reluctant to have lists, particularly in primary legislation, because they set in stone an organisation which may no longer be relevant in the future. We simply need more flexibility. That is the reason for the Government's response, not because I do not think organisations like the Scouts have a perfectly sensible and important view to express.

Lord Greaves: I am grateful again for the Minister's care in responding to these amendments. In a sense we are back to the old argument that we do not have to have things in primary legislation because we have a Government and organisations such as Natural England which are full of nice people who do the right things and therefore it does not actually matter what is in the legislation. I have an old-fashioned view that it does matter because at some point the people running these things may not be quite as nice as they are now, or they may change their intentions. If we believe that something should happen, we should put it in legislation so that it has to happen. The Government think that they are going to be in power for ever.
	Then we have the other argument that it does not matter whether it says "must" or "may". We want it to say "may" but we are going to act as if it says "must". I have another old-fashioned view, which is that legislation should actually say what will happen and not something different. However, I am told that these things are old-fashioned.
	I accept that some of the lists that I have proposed may not be appropriate in primary legislation. We had this argument nine years ago on CROW, when we were promised that, although the lists were not appropriate in primary legislation, they would be put in secondary legislation. Therefore, I do not understand why the Government are resisting doing that in this case, as this is simply an extension of CROW. I ask the Government to think about what kind of secondary legislation, which is much easier to change when organisations change, they would consider under this Bill as well as under CROW.
	I was interested in what the Minister said about local authorities. I will follow his references to the 1949 legislation and check whether what he is saying is right. If it is right, that is fine as far as principal authorities are concerned, but I am sorry that he is resisting having something in the Bill about parish councils. Perhaps the 1949 Act should be amended to include parish councils. I think that what he quoted from the 1949 Act was about long-distance routes generally and not just about the coastal route, so the reference might not be appropriate in this Bill. I am not sure how we should deal with that.
	Parish councils have responsibilities in relation to rights of way, although I accept that the coastal route will not all be a right of way. Parish councils are, however, recreation and leisure authorities and often provide local amenities, so they will be able to make a real contribution to the new coastal route. For example, they may provide and run such local facilities as public lavatories and car parks. They also all have notice boards and might make a contribution in that way. If parish councils are brought in as what people nowadays call partners, they will have in many areas something important and significant to contribute at a local level. They ought to be consultees right from the start. However, I will think again about where we should refer to them.
	I hope that the Government will not resist this. I have got used to batting on behalf of parish councils on CLG legislation and I find that, whenever I do, I am knocking at an open door. I hope that the door might also be open as far as Defra is concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment A342 withdrawn.
	Amendment A343
	 Moved by Lord Goodlad
	A343: Clause 292, page 180, leave out lines 34 to 45

Lord Goodlad: I shall also speak to Amendments A350 and A354 in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Taylor. This group of amendments is about the right of appeal, or the non-right of appeal. The House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs concluded in July 2008:
	"The lack of a formal appeal process is a fundamental weakness of the Bill. As it stands, Defra and Natural England have control of the whole process from policy development to implementation on the ground. Neither organisation has provided us with a convincing explanation why there cannot be a proper third-party appeal process as well as a requirement for consultation with landowners and occupiers. We consider the right of landowners and occupiers to have an independent, third-party appeal process to be an important element of the fair balance between public and private interests that the Government is aiming to achieve. The Bill should provide for such a process".
	The pre-legislative scrutiny Joint Committee on the draft marine Bill reached a similar conclusion in its July 2008 report. It said:
	"The Bill contains no mechanism for appeal against decisions by the Secretary of State to designate land as coastal margin. The ... appeals mechanism",
	under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 regarding mapping of open country and registered common land to which the public have access,
	"will not apply as there is no mapping process and Defra has confirmed that the Secretary of State intends to use powers in the Bill to disapply the CROW appeals mechanism for exclusions and restrictions. Under the draft Bill, the Secretary of State may by regulation make provision for interested persons or organisations 'to be given an opportunity to make representations to Natural England about matters which relate to coastal access reports and are of a kind specified in the regulations'".
	Evidence from the Country Land and Business Association and the National Farmers' Union strongly argues for the need for an independent appeals mechanism. Other witnesses supported the need for an independent appeals mechanism as exists in CROW and other access legislation, such as the Highways Act 1980. The only legal redress for dissatisfied owners and occupiers in the absence of such an appeals mechanism will be judicial review. The representations process in the Bill does not provide for any third party consideration or independent appeals process. Even the CROW appeals mechanism would not provide this if applied in its current form to the coastal access provisions as the Secretary of State would be both designating land, including exclusions and restrictions, and then deciding an appeal on that designation. Noble Lords will wish to ensure that costly recourse to judicial review is not the only option to challenge the alignment, spreading room and exclusions and restrictions which should be subject to appeals mechanisms.
	On 18 December 2008, your Lordships' Select Committee on the Constitution reported to the House on the Bill. The committee opined that rights of appeal against administrative decisions of public authorities are an important aspect of the relationship between the citizen and the state. There can be no argument about that. Without effective appeal procedures, the citizen cannot easily challenge the lawfulness or merits of a determination. In situations where legislation fails to provide for an appeals system, the remedy of launching judicial review proceedings in the High Court—you could not make it up if it were not in the Bill—is for most citizens more of a theoretical possibility than a realistic means of seeking redress for an allegedly unlawful decision. High legal costs, the prospect of being ordered to pay the other side's costs if the claim fails and the length of time it takes for the claims to be heard are completely unrealistic barriers for ordinary people to the use of the judicial review procedure. The grounds of challenge on judicial review claims are limited to questions of law. It is rarely possible to raise disputes about facts or the merits of the public authority's decision. As a matter of constitutional principle, therefore, rights of appeal should be created.
	The range of powers contained in this Bill to require coastal landowners to permit public access to their property ought, in your Lordships' committee's opinion, to be accompanied by a right of appeal to an independent body. The possibility of making a claim for judicial review in the High Court is neither a proportionate nor a realistic option for the vast majority of ordinary people in this country.
	Your Lordships' committee is not persuaded by the reasons advanced by the Government for not including any appeal procedures in the Bill. It is said that few appeals will be successful, and that the experience of the appeals system under Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 is that appeals were disproportionate, lengthy and expensive. Predictions of the outcome of appeals are not, I suspect your Lordships will agree, a sound argument against the creation of an appeals system. Indeed, we would be concerned if an appeals system led to a large proportion of successful challenges, as that would indicate that there was something badly wrong with the administration of the system or the terms in which the legislation was framed. In the absence of such an appeals system, stakeholders, or those who can afford to do so, would have to resort to judicial review proceedings in the High Court, which are neither cheap nor quick. It is in the Government's hands to recommend an appeals system that seeks to minimise both the time taken and the costs involved in allowing citizens to question the judgments of Natural England and the Secretary of State.
	There is no suggestion of, or support for, slow and extravagantly costly appeal processes. A measured response in relation to the coastal access duty would be to attempt to create a better appeals system rather than to exclude one altogether.
	The Government's second reason for rejecting an appeals system is that there will be a consultation, and landowners would have a right to make representations before the line of route was determined by the Secretary of State. This appears to conflate two different steps in the decision-making process. The principles of procedural propriety, otherwise known as natural justice, require that landowners be consulted and are given opportunities to make representations before a final decision is made. Such a right is given express recognition in the Bill. This right exists as a matter of common law, whether or not spelt out in legislation, in relation to many if not most types of decision-making by public authorities.
	The right, however, is separate from the question of whether a citizen should have a means of challenging the final decision after it has been made. The grounds of appeal might be that the decision-maker did not properly understand, or failed to give appropriate weight to, the matters on which representations had been made earlier in the process. The duty to strike a fair balance between different interests applies not only to the substance of the coastal access scheme but also to the procedures adopted in reaching decisions. No decision-making process in the Bill allows appeals by individuals. A balance must be struck between citizen and state in the context of the Bill. The Bill must be amended. I beg to move.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: I advise the Committee that, if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments A343A to A349C by reason of pre-emption.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: This group of amendments offers a bewildering array of alternative versions of much the same thing; indeed, I have my name to the trio of amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lord Goodlad. This is not surprising. The loss of control over a landowner's private property is clearly significant. The extensive and extremely detailed consultation and representation requirements that we have just ploughed our way through are, of course, extremely welcome, and will be very useful in improving buy-in to the scheme, as well as the likelihood that the route will be established sensibly.
	However, those requirements are not a replacement for a proper appeals system, where Natural England's decisions are reviewed by an independent and objective body. The lack of an appeals system has, as has been noted by your Lordships, led to an enormous outcry among many stakeholders. I am sure that we have all received briefings from an impressive array of interested bodies and organisations. I know that my colleagues in another place have received letters from constituents. The Country Land and Business Association, in particular, has been very helpful in articulating its concerns. The strength of feeling from almost all groups has been heavily on the side of inserting a proper appeals system. Indeed, only Natural England has indicated to me that it is happy with the Bill's current drafting.
	These are not only outside bodies; several committees have added their voices, too. I am very pleased that the Joint Committee on Human Rights selected my Amendment A357A as one that removes what it confirms is a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Of course, many of the other amendments in the group do much the same thing, but it is always nice to hear that one's drafting achieves, for once, what one intended it to do. With such an overwhelming weight of opinion against them, it is not surprising that the Government have indicated that they are willing to move on this point. Indeed, recent discussions have indicated that they now accept that there must be an appeals process. There is much agreement between us about what must be established.
	First, the appeals process must be independent. For Natural England or the Secretary of State to act as judge and jury on a report and the representations received would be inappropriate and would add nothing to what has already been drafted. The adjudicating body must be able to disagree with a decision held by both Natural England and the Secretary of State, and have that disagreement upheld. It would be equally inappropriate for Natural England or the Secretary of State to act as gatekeeper to the process. Secondly, the right of appeal should be established for those who are losing something, specifically those losing control of the land that they have a relevant interest in. Thirdly, and as my noble friend Lord Goodlad said, the appeals process should be quick, accessible and as cheap as possible, while remaining credible. It is in no one's interests to tie Natural England and the appellants down in a long, expensive and arcane legal procedure.
	Amendment A357A should achieve all these things. The Planning Inspectorate is experienced in such decisions and can act at a suitably local level to ensure that the entire process is not overly burdensome or complicated. I look forward to the Minister's response, and I hope that when we return to the matter on Report we will be much further along in coming to a final agreement.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: I rise to support these amendments, particularly Amendment A357A. I consider an appeals system to be the key to successful implementation of the Bill. As I made clear in my previous interventions, I very much favour greater access to our countryside. It has enormous benefits for the mental and physical health of our nation. With one or two exceptions, which I touched on when discussing dogs, it is not as harmful to land managers as many of them might think. Indeed, in creating greater understanding of our countryside by outsiders and bringing much needed money into the rural economy, it can be said to bring great benefit to landowners and land managers. That is my view; I accept that I am probably considered rather "unreliable" by many of my fellow landowners on this issue.
	I turn to Amendment A357A. Being a natural enthusiast, I am well aware of the dangers of enthusiasm and of thinking that what you are trying to achieve must be as important to everyone else as it is to you. If you are a member of Natural England's staff spending all your working hours trying to plan this very worthy coastal access, whatever anyone might say to the contrary and however professional you might be—the team working for Natural England is highly professional—you will inevitably tip the scales of your decision a little, making the processes favour optimum access as against other priorities of land managers which may involve protecting wildlife or their families' farming income. Natural England staff, supported by Defra and its Ministers, will undertake the extremely difficult task of trying to juggle some obvious and some not-so obvious sections of potential pathways to create a continuous coastal access around our shores.
	In pursuit of this complicated objective it would not be surprising if Natural England, Defra and even its Ministers were not prone to interpreting the legislation in favour of their purposes rather than other valid objectives. As I said, I do not say this in any way as a criticism of the professionalism of those involved but, even if they have their enthusiasm well under control, it is vital that justice must be seen to be done. I am aware that the Countryside Agency, of which I was a chair, was accused of spending too much time and too much money conscientiously mapping the land designated under the CROW Act. There were rules and fairly firm definitions involved but the appeals process was vindicated in that case because 75 per cent of appeals were successful. You do not really need to say very much more than that. An appeals process is essential here so that justice can be seen to be done and this very worthwhile initiative sets off on the right foot, if noble Lords will excuse the pun.

Lord Pannick: In an 1893 judgment on rating law in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Bowen stated:
	"If no appeal were possible, I have no great hesitation in saying that this would not be a desirable country to live in".
	That puts the case rather more strongly than I would, but your Lordships will understand the sentiment. I have added my name to amendments in this group because in the present context a right of appeal to an independent body is essential to securing the fair balance between the interests of the public in having rights of access over land and the interests of any person with a relevant interest in the land. That fair balance is the very objective stated in Clause 287(3) in relation to the coastal access duty.
	Decisions taken under the Bill to require coastal access will inevitably have a substantial impact on the rights of those who own land or have interests in land. The reasons hitherto given by the Government for declining to make provision for a right of appeal are, with great respect, entirely unconvincing. They have given three reasons. First, it is said that a right of appeal would be an expensive and protracted process. However, it is open to the Government—I very much hope that they will take this step—to adopt procedural rules that will ensure an efficient appeals process. In any event, if there is no right of appeal, aggrieved persons will be able to, and will, bring applications for judicial review in the High Court. I assure the Minister that judicial reviews will be much more expensive and much slower than an efficient appeals process. It is in the Government's interest to adopt an efficient appeals process.
	The second argument the Government have made is that landowners can make representations in advance of the decision being taken. But the right to have your views taken into account, valuable as it is, is not an alternative to the right to challenge a decision before an independent body after the decision has been made. Both elements are essential to a fair process.
	The third and final point that the Government have made is that a decision on the coastal access duty will not only affect the land of a particular owner or occupier, but will also have implications for others. The answer to that point is that it is common in administrative decision-making for the decisions that are challenged to have an impact not just on the appellant, but also on a range of third parties. Obviously, a planning permission may affect the interests of neighbours. An appeal body will therefore necessarily consider the general implications of its decisions. It will hear representations not just from the appellant and the decision maker, but from any third party with a direct interest. There is nothing unusual about the present context.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, mentioned that the need for a right of appeal has been explained by your Lordships' Constitution Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, pointed out that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has stated that, in the absence of a right of appeal, the Bill's provisions are not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I very much hope that the Minister will tell the Committee that progress can be made on this.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I wish to make a very short impact on this discussion. I fully support the Bill's objective of giving individuals the right of way around the coastal paths of Britain. However, as someone who has managed land and farmed for a considerable time, I cannot support the principle of no right of appeal, and believe that it should be contained in the Bill.
	Whether the wording should be as prescriptive as that contained in Amendment A357A is a subject for debate. It is not clear to me whether "any person" or "any land", as stated in the amendment, is not too wide a definition. Clearly, a landowner or farming tenant should be entitled to appeal; likewise a private individual owning or tenanting land. This would narrow the number of appeals, and other aspects could be handled by local authorities' planning inspectorates and committees. However, as it is, an important point of principle is lacking. The citizen is placed in an unequal position in relation to the state. The denial of the right of appeal is indefensible.

Lord Greaves: I will speak to three amendments in this group. I do not wish to speak to Amendment A350ZA, so the Minister can throw away any notes that he has on that. I will speak to Amendments A350ZZA, A350AA and A350AB.
	While I accept a lot of the arguments that have been put forward from different parts of the Committee, I will put forward a slightly different perspective. There is no doubt that there has been enormous pressure from various committees of this House, Joint Committees and committees of the other place, to put something in the Bill that allows people who own or have an interest in land to object and to make representations to an independent person in a way that is not present in the Bill at the moment. We believe that these concerns are legitimate and must be met. Whether they should be met by the amendments that have been spoken to so far is a different matter. However, in some way the Bill must be amended. There has been a developing discussion about this and there has been a series of meetings between Ministers and Members from all sides of the House, as well with people outside the House. What I have to say is intended to be constructive and non-oppositional, which I hope is what I have been doing throughout this part of the Bill. It is important that the coastal access provisions are carried through into law and succeed.
	Much of the resistance to any sort of appeal mechanism comes from the experience of the CROW Act, where the appeals system has not been a tremendous success. It has resulted in considerable delays; it has been expensive, legalistic and if it were being done again people would look for a different system. It was almost exactly based on planning appeals in a different context. The result of it has been that in many cases mistakes have been made in the allocation of land. In many parts of the country, that has resulted in illogical, sometimes jagged boundaries and wrong decisions, as viewed from any standpoint, over particular pieces of land. The 10-year, or decadal review is beginning to grind into action and I hope that that will put right some of the wrong decisions, which have been wrong in both directions. There should have been access land that is not and other land has been classified as access land that ought not to have been so classified.
	The CROW appeal system is not appropriate for this Bill. Both planning and CROW appeals are against decisions by lower authorities—local authorities and Natural England respectively. The appeal is made to the Secretary of State and is dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate. That is what happens in most planning and CROW appeals. The difficulty in this Bill is that the decisions will be made not by Natural England but the Secretary of State. The proposals under the coastal access scheme will be made to the Secretary of State, so the traditional appeal to the Secretary of State is clearly not appropriate.
	What principles should apply? First, we should avoid the problems under CROW. That is a negative principle, but on the basis of experience we do not want to replicate that. Secondly, we should give landowners and other people with interest in land a right of challenge to an independent person, and there should be an expectation that that independent decision at least in most cases will be carried through. Thirdly, it should provide for third-party involvement in a way that often happens in planning and CROW appeals, and which ought to happen under appeals or reviews under this system. Fourthly, the number of appeals and reviews should be as low as possible, and to do that the process must be as good, consultative, involving and inclusive as possible before the reports are published. Fifthly, it should be much quicker than the CROW system has been.
	We know that the Government are seriously considering what they should do and have been unofficially circulating a number of papers and proposals. What I am proposing today should lean heavily on what the Government have been discussing, and one reason for my proposals is to give the Government an opportunity to explain their thinking. I hope that they will take that opportunity. The difference between my proposals and what the Government have been talking about is that I think there should be greater third party involvement.
	My proposals are set out in Amendment A350AB, which can be summarised as saying that the Secretary of State must appoint a person to carry out an independent review where a representation comes from people with interests in land, and may appoint a person where serious representations are made by other relevant interests. The review has to consider all the representations that the Secretary of State refers and may consider representations from the second category.
	The independent person conducting the review has to do it publicly and openly. They must,
	"publish details of the matter ... to be reviewed",
	and,
	"make provision for the persons and bodies",
	who have been making the objections,
	"to make ... further representations",
	if they wish. They must,
	"recommend to the Secretary of State",
	either,
	"that no modifications should take place",
	in the final report on the matters that have been reviewed, or refer it,
	"back to Natural England with a recommendation that ... one or more of the matters that have been reviewed",
	should be considered again. If that happens,
	"Natural England must prepare and submit a report to the Secretary of State ... on those matters that are the subject of a recommendation from the independent review".
	That is not exactly the system of independent appeals that exists in many areas, but it is a satisfactory compromise along the lines on which I believe the Government are thinking. If that is true, they will have our full support in going ahead, for it satisfies the human rights of those with interests in land but, at the same time, does not prejudice and obstruct the carrying-out of a sensible scheme.
	Our final amendment, briefly, is Amendment A350ZZA, which looks again at the question of fair balance being the only reason for a review, and the only issue that should be looked at. Quite clearly, within the context of the scheme as laid down, the concept of fair balance is reasonable and necessary. However, it has to be seen firmly within the objectives of the coastal access scheme. If fair balance is to be the criteria by which appeals are judged, then that has to be done not in a vacuum—as if nothing else existed in the world, and there was no intention to have the scheme—but within the context of the two fundamental objectives of the coastal access scheme, on producing a continuous coastal path and on the access land at the coastal margin. Unless it is looked at within that context, there is scope for a great deal of mischief and obstruction of what I hope Parliament will decide that it wants to see.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not think there is a need for any more 10-minute speeches, because I understand that we are, in fact, knocking on an open door with the Government. However, the Minister must always remember, as I am sure he does, that his department is responsible for agriculture as well as the environment. The Government know that agriculture and the productive use of land is extremely important now; they also appreciate the importance of small businesses. It should not be difficult, then, for them to find a truly just answer—and justice, in this matter, has to be done.

Baroness Byford: I briefly thank my noble friend Lord Goodlad for introducing these important amendments, and I am delighted to know that the Government are looking at some way of bringing forward a right of appeal. I do not think that I have misunderstood the Minister, from what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that the CROW system had not been successful; well, if 75 per cent of the appeals were granted, I suspect that would make it successful. What we are agreeing, around the Chamber, is that the system is, perhaps, too long-winded and too expensive. I hope, then, that we are looking for something slightly shorter in its length of time and in coming to decisions, but there should be an appeal system because the Bill will, clearly, fall on its face without one. I also inform your Lordships that I have asked for my amendment on compensation to be taken separately after this, as it is a different issue.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been an extremely helpful debate. It is pretty clear that the original proposals by the Government have not found favour with your Lordships, with the Constitution Select Committee or with the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I accept that.
	The original proposal in the Bill did not include a right of appeal. Instead, it provided for Natural England to consult affected landowners before preparing its coastal access report. In addition, under new Section 55C(2)(c), the landowner is to be given an opportunity to make representations about Natural England's proposals.
	Clause 287 in the current Bill requires Natural England and the Secretary of State to aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having rights of access over land and the interests of any person with a relevant interest in land. There will be additional safeguards for those with an interest in land because certain types of land, such as buildings and their curtilage, gardens, will always be excepted from the right of access. In addition, landowners can apply to Natural England for access to land to be excluded or restricted if necessary for land management process.
	I have listened, obviously with a great deal of care, to what has been said tonight on the reports of the two Select Committees. We want to encourage consensus building so that the route and coastal margin best meet the aspirations of the public for improved access while respecting the interest of landowners and occupiers. I am clearly mindful of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, from his Select Committee. Most recently, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has raised similar concerns. I noted in particular the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, about JR procedures not being particularly accessible to many of the people who would be affected, but there will be some, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who will pursue JR, and he points out the potential cost to Her Majesty's Government in dealing with those matters. As a former Minister at the Ministry of Justice, I understand the costs of JR proceedings, since we seemed to be the victim of them on a number of occasions.
	The Government are clear that they need to respond to the needs expressed by noble Lords tonight. I have had a number of extremely helpful discussions on a possible review mechanism with noble Lords from all sides of the House. It is clear that some form of review mechanism would be beneficial in reaching the consensus I have mentioned. I have circulated a paper setting out a possible review mechanism which would enable the Secretary of State, where it appears to him that a person with a relevant interest is seeking a modification or making any objection to Natural England's proposals, to forward them to an appointed person for review. We envisage that this would be an inspector from the Planning Inspectorate. We also need to look closely at how the views of all interested parties are considered.
	We are looking at this matter intensively over the next week or so. My officials are holding a meeting with stakeholders tomorrow to discuss this, but I am confident that we will be able to bring forward some detailed proposals on Report, which I very much hope will meet the concerns expressed by noble Lords.
	I understand the points noble Lords have made about wishing to have a procedure which is accessible, that does not cost a lot of money to any person who asks for a review to take place, that can be enacted quickly and that can avoid, perhaps, some of the bureaucratic processes of the appeal system. I take the point the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, makes about the judgment one has to make in relation to the CROW appeal process. We need to learn some of those lessons.
	I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and wearing my Defra hat it would be very hard not to agree with her, about the particular needs of agriculture and SMEs in having a system that they can use without the prospect of great expense. We will seek to meet all those points.
	However, we then come to the very interesting amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. He did not put forward Amendment A350ZA, but he put forward Amendment A350AA. That really is about the status of representations. The noble Lord knows that we do not believe it would be helpful if just anyone were able to invoke a review mechanism, partly for the reasons just referred to about not wanting to have an excessively expensive and time-consuming process. We do believe, however, that landowners, lessees and occupiers of land have a particular interest in the land they own or occupy and this, we think, has been recognised by the most recent report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. This speaks about providing a right of appeal to those affected by the designation of public rights of access over private land. That is the basic premise on which we are working in drawing up a suitable mechanism.
	Of course, however, I fully understand the point the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is making about the need for everyone with an interest in coastal access to have an opportunity to put forward their views on proposals for access. For any mechanism we draw up, it is important to me that the proposals will not be seen and commented on by these groups. What I would envisage is this: if, for instance, as a result of the review mechanism, an objection made by a landholder, lessee or occupier is upheld, one outcome might well be that Natural England would be asked to draw up revised proposals on the piece of land in question. That would then be subject to consultation and representation in the same way as the original proposals. That is the kind of process we envisage; it would ensure the involvement of all interested parties, but after the review mechanism had taken its course.
	I hope noble Lords will feel that I have responded constructively to the very serious points raised. There have been useful discussions, and we shall continue with them. I very much hope that I can bring in an amendment on Report which, if it will not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on the specific point he is raising, will answer the generality of the points. At the end of the day, we want a consensus approach and we want landowners, lessees and tenants to have confidence. I believe that the kind of review mechanism we are proposing will enable that to happen.

Lord Greaves: I, for one, am grateful for the work that the Government and the Minister and his team are putting into this. I do believe that something close to a consensus can be reached. Consensuses are sometimes 85 per cent agreement with people disagreeing at the edges, but that is better than disagreeing fundamentally. So I congratulate the Government on the work they are doing.
	There are two issues about third party involvement. One is whether third parties should have the opportunity to initiate a review. As a result of representations made by third parties on a report, the Secretary of State could decide to have a review, which is what I was suggesting. I understanding why the Government are saying that this should not happen, and I would not press that very vigorously.
	But the second question is whether, if a review takes place, third parties should have the right to have their say, to make representations during that review. That would be in line with planning appeals and CROW Act appeals, where, at the moment, third parties have that right. They do not initiate the appeal: the appeal is initiated by landowners. But anyone who has previously made comments on that particular piece of land, in relation to the CROW Act or a planning application, is almost always given the right to put their oar in. That does not necessarily take up a great deal of extra time or energy or expense. It is just a fair part of the system, and I would hope that the Government would consider that second point, if not the first. But I do express some satisfaction with the way this is going.

Lord Goodlad: I add my thanks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for the Minister's reply, which was extremely helpful. We look forward to a positive outcome from the Minister's consultations with the stakeholders in this matter tomorrow and to our further consideration of these issues on Report. The paper that he generously circulated to us clearly does not meet the concerns of the committee, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, expressed extremely eloquently. I expect we all hope that the consultations will produce a consensus that is acceptable to all the stakeholders, and we will return to the matter on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment A343 withdrawn.
	Amendments A343A to A357B not moved.

Baroness Byford: I think that the last amendment is the one that we have degrouped. In fact, the Deputy Chairman of Committees—

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Baroness is referring to Amendment A357BA, but we have not quite got there yet.

Baroness Fookes: I had only got to Amendment A357B, which was not moved. Now we get to Amendment A357BA.
	Amendment A357BA
	 Moved by Baroness Byford
	A357BA: Clause 292, page 181, line 44, at end insert—
	"55EA Compensation for loss caused by coastal access
	(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, if, on a claim made in accordance with this section, it is shown that the value of an interest of any person in land is depreciated, or that a person has suffered damage by being disturbed in his enjoyment of land, in consequence of the creation of coastal access across that land, Natural England shall pay to that person compensation equal to the amount of the depreciation or damage.
	(2) A claim for compensation under this section shall be made within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, and shall be made to Natural England.
	(3) Nothing in this section shall confer on a person a right to compensation for depreciation of the value of an interest in land, or disturbance of his enjoyment of the land, being land which is not comprised in the coastal access report or if so comprised is excepted land, except if and in so far as either—
	(a) it is held with land comprised in the coastal access report which is not excepted land, or
	(b) the omission of any other person to exclude the public from the land comprised in the order or any part thereof would have been actionable at the suit of the first-mentioned person if the coastal access report had not come into operation."

Baroness Byford: I apologise to the Deputy Chairman of Committees. She was not in the Chair earlier when I asked for this amendment to be degrouped.
	I am very grateful for the Minister's response to the group of amendments that we have just debated, because clearly a right of appeal needs to be built into the Bill. I also believe that there should be some form of compensation, because areas of land may well be taken from those who own them to provide access, and that will be done in a compulsory fashion.
	I start by reminding the Committee of my membership of the National Farmers' Union, the CLA, the Countryside Alliance and the National Trust, but it is the CLA and the NFU that have particularly raised the issue of compensation.
	The Minister said earlier that the Select Committee criticised the Government's response to its recommendations on rights of appeal, and that is true also concerning the whole question of compensation. I turn, first, to the ninth report of the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2007-08. On page 20, it clearly says:
	"The Bill should give Natural England the power to offer compensation to owners and occupiers who can demonstrate financial loss as a result of the coastal access provisions where such compensation is necessary to achieve the fair balance between public and private interests that the Bill requires".
	Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and I both sat on the Joint Committee of both Houses. Again, its report says, on page 92, that most interested parties agree that compensation should be available in particular cases of demonstrable loss. There was also agreement that there should not be a presumption of compensation for all landowners and occupiers. Even though the Government are going to come up with some suggestion of right of appeal, they should also consider adding some form of compensation to the Bill. It is late and most noble Lords who are in the Chamber at the moment are well aware of this amendment, so without further ado I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Baroness was pleased with my response to the previous discussion about appeals or a review mechanism. I suspect that this is not going to be so positive for her, though I am very grateful for the succinct way she has drawn out the issue. Essentially, her amendment would mean that Natural England would have to pay compensation for any loss caused by coastal access if it could be shown that the value of a person's land had depreciated, or that the person had suffered damage by being disturbed in his enjoyment of the land. I am afraid that I am going to resist this. The Bill has been drawn up so that the implementation of a new right will take account of the interest of landowners and minimise any impact on business. It is worth pointing out that land covered by buildings, or the curtilage of such land, will be excepted from the right of access. We expect the overall impact on business to be positive—I do not know if I can pray the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in aid of that as a general point, but I will tempt fate in seeking to do so.
	The right of access was introduced under the CROW Act and we now have experience of it working and working well. We do not consider that it is appropriate that compensation should be provided for and, as far as the landowner's interests being protected if there is no right of compensation, I refer the noble Baroness to Clause 287, which requires the Secretary of State and Natural England to strike a fair balance between the interests of landowners and the interests of the general public. As I have made clear, since the Government are clearly committed to introducing a review mechanism, we think that we have the balance right.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for the way he has responded and I accept that, within the Bill, the Government are looking to strike a fair balance. Even so, that leaves me somewhat uneasy. He is virtually saying that the Joint Committee has got it wrong; that is how I read it, shorthand. I do not think that it has got it wrong, so on this occasion I am grateful to him for the very positive way he has tried to facilitate the various issues that we have raised throughout debates on the Bill, but I may well want to come back to the amendment at a later stage; it depends on the appeals system.
	As the Minister knows so well because it carries his name, the front of the Bill states:
	"Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has made the following statement ... In my view the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] are compatible with the Convention rights".
	If you are taking away something that belongs to somebody and you are not in any way considering giving them any compensation, I do not think that is compatible. I am only sorry that one or two of our legal friends are no longer sitting in their places, but I would like to give it thought before we come back on Report. I am well aware of the difficulties that we experienced when we were taking the CROW Act through and then the consequences of the appeals system being rather long, so it has not helped itself, but there should be some form of compensation in there. However, I shall leave that for another day.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: On the ECHR question, I shall not bore the House by reading out a long scribe as to why I believe I was right to sign it, but perhaps I might circulate a note for noble Lords who might find it helpful.

Baroness Byford: Perhaps that covers compensation. Clearly, it is always a difficult situation when one accepts the interests of the majority against the minority person who might be the owner or the occupier, or might have a business on what is likely to be coastal access land. I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment A357BA withdrawn.
	Amendment A357C
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	A357C: Clause 292, page 182, leave out lines 6 and 7

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: We have tabled Amendment A357C and the others in this group, to which I will speak, to call into question the power which new Section 55F(3) to be inserted into the 1949 Act here affords to Natural England. New subsection (2) clearly specifies that Natural England must abide by the approved proposals for long-distance routes, which would otherwise come under Section 2(1) of the CROW Act. This is very sensible because, in areas where Natural England has control, the coastal access scheme will not work unless it is required to follow its proposals. Bearing this in mind, it seems to make very little sense to then allow Natural England powers,
	"to revoke or vary the direction after it is made".
	Indeed, that seems to undermine the reasoning behind subsection (2). Will the Minister tell us why this should be the case? How much control would this afford to Natural England over the direction and designation of the route?
	We have tabled Amendment A359A to ensure that land which can be taken as coastal margin does not apply at the expense of all other legislation.
	It ensures that Sections 22, 24 and 30 of the CROW Act—"Exclusion or restriction at discretion of owner and others", "Land management" and "Appeal by person interested in land"—still apply to the designation of spreading room. It also specifies that land which is excluded as coastal margin land by Schedule 1 to the CROW Act cannot be included as spreading room. Furthermore, it limits the extent of spreading room to 2 metres on either side of the designated line of coastal route.
	Amendment A359B reinforces these changes by removing the proviso in the Bill that states that any restrictions on access under Chapter 2 which apply to land that has become coastal margin land have no effect after the preparation period. In contrast, our amendment ensures that these restrictions remain and are instead incorporated into the "approved proposals".
	These restrictions are necessary and important. They place a limit on spreading room in terms of its physical extent and in terms of allowing owners, factors of land management and persons interested in the land to maintain their legal rights as under CROW and have a say in the use of their land. We believe that this is crucial to ensure a balance between the importance of the path and the relevance of other uses of the land. We believe that spreading room must be catered for, but not at the expense of other land use.
	Our Amendment A359D allows the Secretary of State power to designate, at a maximum of 14 days,
	"a period of special protection for wild birds",
	which the relevant authority must carry out. Periods of prolonged severe weather, for example, may cause severe damage to survival rates of populations of wild waterfowl. There is a large amount of documentary evidence showing the energy costs of their taking flights in reaction to being disturbed at these times.
	Amendment A359D would ensure that in such conditions the Secretary of State had the power to order restricted access, which would protect these birds. It would also add a degree of flexibility that is necessary for this coastal access path. It is important that we remember that while continuous access to the coast is important, other factors must be taken into consideration to which we should be able to adapt. It may mean that there is a short period where access to a certain part of the coastal path is restricted or denied. Nevertheless, this would not be for very long. It would not need to involve a great deal of the path; nor, indeed, is it too big a price to pay for maintaining the delicate balance with the flora and fauna that most people will go to visit. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the succinct way in which he has presented an important case. This group of amendments deals with Clause 293(5), which allows the Secretary of State by order under new Section 3A to the CROW Act to modify the description of land in England as coastal margin for the purposes of this part of the Act.
	Amendments A357C, A359A and A359B would restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to make changes to the restrictions regime and to Schedule 1 to the CROW Act, which covers categories of excepted land. The amendments refer to "spreading room". I have no difficulty understanding what spreading room is, but the noble Lord will also know that we have no definition of spreading room in the Bill because we do not use it. He makes me swallow hard when he comes up with a new term at this stage, although I have no doubt that he will say that it is not a new concept. We take spreading room to mean the coastal margin, other than that over which the route actually passes. The amendments seek to restrict changes to the restrictions and excepted land regime by referring to the route strip only. Amendment A359D would introduce a new type of exclusion or restriction for the protection of wild birds, for the reasons expressed by the noble Lord when he introduced the amendment, for a limited period of not more than 14 days at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
	Continuity and certainty of access are paramount to our vision of improving access to the English coast. That principle underlies this legislation. Because of this, although access to land may still be excluded or restricted, there will clearly be some differences between this and the current system under the CROW Act for open country—mountain, moor, heath and down—which gives rise to very different issues from those to which the coastal path gives rise.
	We expect careful and considered identification of the coastal margin to be undertaken in line with a statutory scheme approved by the Secretary of State, and in consultation and discussion with local interests, to ensure that any impact on business is minimal. I bear in mind the various representations made earlier in our discussions today about the significance of the health of the countryside to those who use and appreciate the coastal paths.
	When aligning the route, Natural England would be able to propose restrictions on access, for example for nature conservation reasons, or to protect crops or livestock. People with an interest in the land will also be able to ask Natural England to propose restrictions, for example for reasons of land management, and can make representations to the Secretary of State if Natural England does not do this. The need for these restrictions will be considered by the Secretary of State. After the initial alignment process, landowners and those with an interest in land will be able to apply for further restrictions if circumstances change, and they will be able to make representations if these are not agreed.
	These measures mean that the facility in the CROW Act for landowners to restrict or exclude access for up to 28 days a year at their discretion—this is available for open country—is not necessary or appropriate for coastal land. We have to ensure that continuity of access around the coast is maintained. Otherwise this legislation does not achieve its main purpose.
	As I said previously, we will carry out a public consultation process on the new Section 3A order to allow owners and occupiers of land the opportunity to comment on any proposals we might make. We have already published a paper setting out the changes we envisage will need to be made, but we will review these in the light of the consultation process. We will look in particular at whether different regimes are appropriate for the route slip and the wider coastal margin. We need the benefit of that consultation and other debates both in this House, which I can anticipate on Report and beyond, and in the other place, will help to guarantee that we get this right. Our view, therefore, is that the provisions in the Bill for full consultation with owners and occupiers about the alignment of the coastal route and our consultation on the order are the right ways to take these important issues forward. We do not see the need to insert a new provision in the Bill, and although I share with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, the concerns he has expressed in his amendments, I hope he will accept that the Government have considered these issues fully and that the Bill pursues a road which guarantees that what he seeks in his proposals for the way in which Natural England is to operate is already in the Bill. Given that, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am pleased that we have had this debate and I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He will not be surprised that the coastal margin, spreading room or whatever it is called, probably causes as much anxiety, if not more, than the actual path itself because an unpredictable element comes into the equation. It is not surprising that people are concerned about the impact it might have on their holdings, farms and property. This group of amendments ties in well with our discussions on the previous few sets of amendments where we have considered the relative rights and responsibilities of owners and the community at large as regards access to a coastal path. I note what the Minister has said, but this whole area is one that we will look at again on Report. In the mean time, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment A357C withdrawn.
	Amendments A358 to A358C not moved.
	Clause 292 agreed.
	Clause 293 : Access to the coastal margin
	Amendments A358D to A359D not moved.
	Clause 293 agreed.
	Amendments A360 and A361 not moved.
	Amendment A362 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendments A362A to A362AE not moved.
	Clause 294 agreed.
	Amendment A362AF
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	A362AF: After Clause 294, insert the following new Clause—
	"Interruptions to the coastal route by proposed development
	(1) The Planning Act 2008 (c. 29) is amended as follows—
	(a) in section 8 (consultation on publicity requirements), after subsection (1)(b) insert—
	"(c) Natural England if the location is in whole or in part coastal access land within the meaning of section 3A of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act."
	(b) in section 42 (duty to consult), after paragraph (d) insert—
	"(e) Natural England if the land is in whole or in part coastal access land within the meaning of section 3A of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act."
	(2) This subsection applies when Natural England receives a notification of a proposal for development consent from the Infrastructure Planning Commission, or of an application to a local authority for planning permission, and the proposed development is in whole or in part on coastal access land.
	(3) If it considers that the proposed development will have a serious effect on coastal access in that area, Natural England must carry out a review (an "urgent review") of the coastal access on the affected land in consultation with the applicants, the persons listed in section 55E of the 1949 Act and the local planning authority.
	(4) Natural England may—
	(a) object to or comment on the application for development consent or planning permission, and the existence of coastal access land is a material planning consideration in the determination of the application;
	(b) request the applicants to provide alternative coastal access by means of an alternative route and coastal margin, and such provision may be a relevant condition or part of a planning obligation in the consent;
	(c) provide alternative coastal access by means of an alternative route and coastal margin."

Lord Greaves: This amendment is about the relationship between the planning system and the new coastal route and spreading room. To some extent this was covered earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. It would be helpful if we had a much clearer idea, not necessarily of how the new coastal route and the coastal margin will fit into the planning system—although they will have to fit into local development plans—but how there will be a relationship between them. This is not a particularly coherent amendment, I regret to say; it is not one of my best. As we did not reach it last time, I promised myself I would rewrite it during the Recess, but I found other things to do like going to football matches.
	There are two aspects. One is how the existence of coastal margin land, particularly the coastal route, will be portrayed within the local development framework. It clearly will be because long-distance routes tend to appear on the local map at the moment. That question is not dealt with in this amendment. The second aspect is what happens when there are applications for planning permission or development consent for major infrastructure projects to the new Infrastructure Planning Commission. What will happen to the coastal route as a consequence of these planning applications and what will be the process by which this happens? These important matters ought to be considered. Natural England will clearly be at the forefront of looking at the effect that planning applications and potential developments have on the coastal route, but there needs to be a formal process. If it is an application for planning permission to a local authority, Natural England will probably be a consultee already in that process. It is not a statutory consultee under the Planning Act 2008 for applications for development consent but it ought to be if it affects a long-distance route, particularly the coastal route and the coastal margin. It ought to have the opportunity to make representations about the planning application as it is being considered. I am not suggesting that in most cases the existence of the coastal route will be a major material consideration in looking at a major planning application, but it might be. It certainly ought to be an important consideration in looking at a small local planning application to a local authority. The fact that a small development might have a significant effect by obstructing or in some way worsening the experience of the coastal route and the coastal margin ought to be something the local planning authority has to consider. It may not regard it as being the most important thing and it may give planning application after all, but if opinion is divided 50:50, it may tip the balance. On some parts of the coast, a planning application that threatens to spoil a major local tourist and recreational feature may be very significant indeed. At that stage, Natural England ought to have a clear statutory involvement and be able to make representations if it wants to.
	If a planning application that affects the coastal route is granted, there ought to be a clear process for dealing with the implications, either by organising replacement coastal margin land or by providing an alternative route, as part and parcel of the process of the planning application. This is kind of thing that local authorities deal with every day in planning applications and it ought to apply in this case. If it does not, Natural England should still have the responsibility to take action, by an appropriate diversion or some other way, to repair the damage that is being caused to the coastal route.
	I am probing how the planning system and the coastal access system will interrelate and how things will happen at different stages of the planning process, from people applying for planning permission to developments being carried out. It would be helpful if the Government were much clearer than they have been so far on these matters. I beg to move.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will not be surprised to hear me express doubts about the amendment. Of course Natural England will be involved in any proposed development that is likely to affect the coastal route, but I refer to the comments that I made a moment ago about the natural enthusiasm of those involved, which will inevitably steer Natural England to go for the option contained in subsection (4)(a) in the proposed new clause, as that will be its route: it is much easier to object to a development than to rethink the route and the bits of the route on either side of the development, as obviously there has to be continuity.
	This is just the sort of example that worried me when I spoke in favour of Amendment A357B on the importance of flexibility to accommodate future development. Of course planners must acknowledge the existence of the coastal route when considering any proposed development on our coast, but I would prefer it if the options contained in paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (4) were the options of first resort and it was the local planning authority or the IPC that decided that, in the light of the alternative routes being put forward either by Natural England or by the developer, the existing route was irreplaceable. It should be the planning authority that decides whether that is a material consideration in the planning decision on the proposed development.

Earl Cathcart: We do not agree with the amendment, which would put on the face of the Planning Act 2008 that Natural England must be a consultee. The Government are averse to lists and to including the names of organisations in primary legislation, as the name of organisations may change. Indeed, not so long ago Natural England was called English Nature. Who knows what it will be called in a few years' time?
	Our main objection, however, is to subsection (4)(a) in the proposed new clause, which says that,
	"the existence of coastal access land is a material planning consideration in the determination of the application".
	We would not wish to limit any further the rights of those with relevant interests in affected land. We have heard from the Country Land and Business Association—the CLA—of its strong opposition to the amendment. In previous discussions, I understood Defra to say that the Bill as drafted meant that the coastal route or margin would have no impact on any planning decisions that the landowner might seek in future. I understood the principle to be the same as in the CROW Act, where the owner is free to change the use of the land and the right to roam will be amended accordingly. I would welcome assurances from the Minister on that point. If the landowner wishes to develop their property, whether it be planting a new wood, ploughing up a bit of grazing, building a new cottage or extending a business premises, they should be able to do so, subject to existing planning law. The coastal route and the coastal margin is about making suitable land accessible to the public. We do not want to sterilise our coast or create a pseudo-national park by saying that the existence of a coastal path is a material planning consideration in the determination of a planning application.
	My noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach sought in his amendment A357B earlier today to require a review to be requested because of proposed or actual changes in land use. The ability to change land use was strongly supported by my noble friend Lady Byford and by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I am pleased that he spoke again to this amendment. If local authorities feel there is sufficient need for a new route or right of way, which of course is taken into account in planning decisions, there are procedures in place for that to happen. This Bill should not be used to hamper the ability to change land use. To limit what owners can do with their own land would be a significant restriction, far greater than the impact we have been talking about so far.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I was particularly grateful for the earlier remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. I thought for one moment that he might be making the totality of the response I was going to make to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Subsequently in his speech he veered away from the way that I would have expressed matters, so I think there is a little space for me to occupy in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
	The Government do not accept the amendment but we do recognise the concerns expressed by the noble Lord about the impact of development on the route where the route would be interrupted by such development. As I made clear when we debated the provisions for excepted land, the CROW right of access is sufficiently flexible to allow for changes in land use. We expect the process of consultation which Natural England undertakes prior to drawing up a coastal access report to identify likely new developments so that it can take those into account in drawing up the proposals. It is not conceivable that Natural England would be unaware of nationally significant developments. Should there be developments after the route has been put in place, Natural England will have the power under Section 55 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to draw up a report proposing a variation of the route. For these reasons, I believe that we have adequate powers as far as Natural England is concerned to respond to the issues of development and I do not think that it is appropriate for the coastal access provisions to be specifically included in the Planning Act, which was also the burden of the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart.
	I accept that there is a case to provide for Natural England to be required to carry out a review of its report where a stretch of the route is subject to development which, in its view, has or will result in the land over which the particular stretch of route passes becoming excepted land. I entirely accept the burden of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Natural England must be able to take account of these issues and have some locus with regard to them.
	However, the case has not been made for what would be substantial amendments to this legislation. We have considered how Natural England will cope with the problem, which is of some significance. It will consider planning applications where access is already an issue. There will obviously be only one consideration that the planning authority must weigh up. The planning authority has its clear obligations under the Bill and this aspect must be taken into the balance. That is somewhat different from the burden of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. The planning authority will also take into account the interests of the local economy, the position of local landowners and the possibility that the route could be varied to avoid the development without any cost to the enjoyment of those who tend to use the route.
	I recognise the important point on development that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has raised. We have considered this matter carefully and the amendments do not provide the right approach to the issue. What is in the Bill will ensure that Natural England will be in a position to come to terms with development, as of course it should.

Lord Greaves: I am even more confused now. I thank the Minister for his reply. I will explain why I am confused in a minute. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that there is nothing in this amendment that suggests that the coastal route should be the only thing that is considered, or that any other kind of development should necessarily be ruled out. It does not say that at all. Nor does subsection (4)(a) say that. All that subsection (4)(a) states is that it should be "a material planning consideration" along with all the others.
	The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, said that it should not be a material planning consideration. I am confused about that. I do not understand why it should not be, since it will be an important part of the local economy, the local recreational and leisure facilities and the land use of the area. By setting up the coastal route and access land as it stands, you effectively change the land-use designation of that area. You allow people access to recreational areas that they do not have access to at the moment, and you create a long-distance route. That long-distance route will certainly appear in local development framework documents, or what we now call the local plan. I cannot see that it can possibly not appear in those documents. Once it appears in them, it is part of the planning system.
	I understand the difference between the designation of land under CROW and the long-distance route, but the long-distance route will not be designated under CROW. It will be designated under the 1949 Act. A long-distance route such as the Pennine Way or the south-west coastal path is already a material planning consideration for any development that would take place and would affect it. That is my view; if the Government think that I am wrong, I would like to hear from them because I do not claim to be a total expert on this.
	I am absolutely certain that these matters are considered. They will certainly be a cause for objections to developments next to or on the path of the long-distance route which people think are inappropriate. I cannot conceive that the planning system would not consider those objections fairly and objectively. This is not to say that it has to overrule everything else. There seems to be a lack of understanding among some noble Lords about how the planning system works. People are allowed to put in objections. Just because Natural England would be a statutory consultee under my proposals and be able to say, "No, this would be disastrous and should not be allowed", or, "If you are going to do it, this is how we would divert it", does not mean that the local planning authority or the Infrastructure Planning Commission would regard that as the be all and end all. It may say, "We have considered these representations but on balance we are going to give planning permission". That happens all the time. I believe that Natural England is probably already consulted automatically by a lot of planning authorities on a lot of applications. Therefore, I do not understand what the objection is to the measure.
	I am confused because on the one hand we were told that these matters are nothing to do with this Bill and everything is okay, but on the other we are then told by the Minister that Natural England may well make representations, which will be considered along with all other representations, which is what I would expect. The local planning authority will then make a balanced decision. Surely that is what will happen, so I do not understand why the essence of the amendment, although not the wording, is being resisted. I am really trying to probe how this will work. What will be the relationship between the long-distance route and the planning system both in terms of overall planning—the development of local development frameworks, for example—and in terms of dealing with particular planning applications and what Natural England has to do if a development takes place which radically affects the route or the coastal margin, but particularly the route? What responsibilities will Natural England have to rectify the situation as regards the route? I do not understand why everybody is getting worked up over this. It seems to me that these are practical things that will happen and will have to be considered. The Government ought to think about this and tell us how the process will work. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment A362AF withdrawn.
	Schedule 19 : Establishment and maintenance of the English coastal route etc
	Amendment A362B
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	A362B: Schedule 19, page 283, line 7, leave out "clearance or"

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I received notification that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, wished Clause 294 to stand part. Therefore, I shall continue.
	My amendments in this group probe the implementation and maintenance of the coastal route. There are a great number of small amendments here. Therefore, I shall try to speak to the larger issues on which I hope to receive further clarification. First, I wish to address the question of the work done to establish the route. Schedule 19 raises the possibility of some serious works being necessary. Paragraph 2(3) speaks of clearance and the removal of obstructions such as walls. When I first read through the schedule, I was pleased to note in Paragraph 2 that this will all be done with the agreement of the owner or occupier, and that Natural England or the access authority will bear the costs except where the owner agrees to undertake the works himself. Unfortunately, I then turned the page and realised that that is not the case under Paragraph 3. Here Natural England or the relevant access authority is able to come on to private land and start chopping down trees, filling in ditches and digging up walls in order to smooth the way for the coastal route. I hope that the Minister will assure us that sub-paragraph (3) is to be used only in the most extreme cases where Natural England has done everything it can to gain the proper permission for the works, and that in that case the owner or occupier would not be expected to fund any proportion of them.
	I should also like clarification on why yet another definition of who has a relevant interest in the affected land, beyond those that we have already discussed, is being used. I should also like to hear more about how much disruption to the landscape the Minister thinks is appropriate for the creation of the route. It cannot be in anyone's interest to destroy natural wildlife habitats. This links to earlier discussions about whether the route is to be four metres wide where possible. Obviously, considerably more chopping down, filling in and digging up will be necessary if four metres is to be the standard. I hope that Natural England would rather reduce the width of the route than undertake significant works. I should also like confirmation that none of these works may be undertaken for the purpose of extending the coastal margin.
	Secondly, I turn to notices and signs. My amendments probe where it might be necessary to change the signage on someone's land without consulting them, and when Natural England might not bear the full cost of such signage. They also express the hope that an indication of the extent of the coastal margin will be included on the signs, and that Natural England must reasonably respond to complaints by relevant people that signage is inadequate—perhaps where the public frequently wander off the route onto land where there is no access. I beg to move.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: I support Amendment A362N, which concerns signs. Many of us, including from the government Front Bench, have spoken on Part 9 and the importance of involving locals in the implementation of coastal access. The involvement—and support, where possible—of local authorities, parishes, landowners and farmers will be crucial to the effective operation of the whole initiative. If a local landowner, farmer or parish says that there are problems with walkers getting lost, or wandering where they should not be, it is entirely right that Natural England should have to respond with a helpful sign. Even if Natural England thinks that the route is perfectly obvious, it will be the locals who know what is happening on the ground, and their support will be needed to make the scheme work effectively. This is an eminently sensible amendment.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Schedule 19 provides powers that are necessary to enable Natural England to identify, establish and maintain the route. For example, it enables Natural England to enter land for the purpose of surveying in connection with the preparation of a report to the Secretary of State proposing a coastal route. It provides for Natural England or the access authority to enter land for the purpose of identifying whether any works are necessary to facilitate use of the route, and for carrying out such works; and it enables Natural England or the access authority to enter into agreements with landowners or occupiers about the carrying out of works, and to make payment for the carrying out of works. Where a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached, Natural England or the access authority will be able to carry out the work themselves. The schedule sets out the steps that must be followed, and the right of appeal for landowners, before such work commences. It also provides for the signing of the route and of the boundaries of the spreading room.
	The substantive response that I will give to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, answers the question, "Will this power be used in a proportionate way and will the compulsion be used in exceptional circumstances?". I fully accept the point that he is raising. We very much hope that works will be done by agreement, and that the reserve powers of intervention will be used only on rare occasions. The whole premise of this legislation is to ensure that, wherever possible, there is consensus.
	Amendments A362B to A362E would mean that it would not be possible for Natural England or the access authority to enter into agreements with owners and occupiers for the clearance of land to facilitate the use of the route by the public, or to facilitate rights of access by bicycle or horseback where restrictions on those rights have been relaxed by the owner. I think that that might be said to go against the spirit of the implementation of the eastern coastal route, which should be carried out where possible by working closely with landowners. If we were to accept the amendment, an agreement for the removal of obstructions such as a wall, fence or other barrier could not be entered into. Where the optimum siting for the route requires clearance or the removal of an obstruction to make it accessible, Natural England or the access authority ought to be able to enter into an agreement with landowners and occupiers to do the necessary improvements.
	Amendments A362F, A362K, A362P and A362R would require Natural England or the access authority to meet expenditure incurred by the owner-occupier in carrying out agreed works to implement or maintain the route. The Bill already provides powers for meeting or contributing to such costs. It is argued that the detail of such payments should be a matter for agreement between the contracting authority and the landowner or occupier taking the particular circumstances into account. Natural England will meet the costs of implementing the route and we think that the approach set out in the Bill provides the flexibility to make reasonable agreements with landowners and occupiers. It also ensures that where for whatever reason such agreements are not possible any necessary work can be carried out.
	Amendments A362G and A362H would remove the powers enabling Natural England or the contracting authority to recover relevant expenses where an owner or occupier fails to carry out the works which he has entered into an agreement to carry out and where the contracting authority carries out those works itself. In that respect the authority must be able to recover any expenses over and above its own contribution from the person with whom it has been agreed that the cost of carrying out work should be met and which the authority has incurred as a result of failure of the owner or occupier to carry out the agreed works.
	We considered a similar amendment to Amendment A362J when we discussed consultation on Natural England's report. As I said, it is not appropriate to extend the definition of those with a relevant interest in affected land to include those with other interests. Anyone may make representations to Natural England.
	Amendments A362M and A362Q would require Natural England to consult landowners and occupiers before erecting or removing any signs about the routes or warning of any hazards. The Bill already provides that Natural England must consult such persons as far as is reasonably practicable to do so. That is a sensible measure that will permit the erection of central signage and information on the safety of users where the identity of an owner-occupier may not be known or when it may not prove possible to contact them. Consultation with landowners, occupiers and other local interests will be the key to the successful implementation of the coastal access route.
	Amendment A362N would add a provision that a person with a relevant interest in the land may request Natural England to provide a notice or sign. The Bill provides for consultation with and representations by those with such an interest. I am not convinced that it is appropriate to single out signage. On the question of an assurance that the works relate only to the route and not the margin, the answer is yes that that is generally the case. Paragraph 2(3)(a) and (b) makes it clear that it applies to the route. Exceptions arise under paragraph 2(3)(c), which relates to the margin but only where the landowner has given consent for horse-riders or cyclists to use the land under a relaxation of a general restriction under sub-paragraph (3)(e), which relates to contracting and removing walls and fences, et cetera, which we would expect to be generally related to the route.
	Overall, this follows CROW and we think that the balance is right. It is not a great big hammer to force landowners and others to do things that they do not want to do. I want to come back to the original point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. We would expect this to be done through agreement. There may be exceptions but I hope that they would be limited.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am pleased to hear the latter comments from the Minister, because some of these powers are, indeed, extensive. We have been trying to construct this path, if one may put it that way, on the basis of consensus and the hope that there will be a buy-in locally. I understand that there could be circumstances where the landowner is not identifiable, and it is necessary to construct a path or to do works on it. However, I am reassured by what the Minister has said, to the extent that he appears to appreciate that getting this wrong could cause many problems.
	I mentioned the width of the route, which is laid down as being 4 metres in normal circumstances. Where that passes through woodland, or close vegetation typical of an area, the Minister did not say whether clearance of that natural habitat would be part and parcel of creating that route of 4 metres' width, or whether a more natural path, which in some cases might already exist, could be adopted. I also asked for confirmation that works of this nature—the clearance of woodland, scrub or brushwood—would not be undertaken for the purpose of extending the coastal margin. I am particularly concerned that, if this path is to be driven like a motorway through the coastal regions, we could end up with a very negative impact. I do not suppose that to be the purpose for a moment, but we ought to be clear and I would like reassurance from the Minister on that matter.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That is clearly not the purpose, and I would expect any proposals to be done sensitively and not to occur as the noble Lord has suggested. I will happily take that back and write to him with further reassurances, but I hope that I have given him some reassurance today.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am grateful for that, because it is important to reassure the stakeholder groups on such matters; they will be interested in the mechanisms with which they will be dealing. I am sorry that the Minister has not been more positive on signage, something in which he should take a great interest.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is not that I have no interest in it, nor that the point which the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Cameron, have raised is not important. The question is whether it should be singled out as the amendment describes it. That is where I have doubts, not on the importance of signage.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am grateful for that and for the response from the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment A362B withdrawn.
	Amendments A362C to A363 not moved.
	Schedule 19 agreed.
	Clause 295 : Restricting liabilities of Natural England and the Secretary of State
	Amendment A364
	 Moved by Earl Cathcart
	A364: Clause 295, page 188, line 41, leave out subsections (1) to (3)

Earl Cathcart: This small group of amendments is intended to probe the question of liability around the coastal route. I am afraid that I might also drag the following Clause 296 into my remarks, and I hope that your Lordships will forgive the lack of an amendment tabled in my name addressing it. As I understand it, Clause 295 means that Natural England is not liable for any injury that a member of the public may incur along the route, unless that injury was predicted in a representation or request for a restriction or exclusion by someone with a relevant interest in the land. That is in contrast to Clause 296 where the occupier remains liable in much wider circumstances. That does not seem fair. Why should Natural England and, indeed, the Secretary of State be able to shrug off any responsibility for the public when the owner cannot?
	Clause 296 is an improvement on what went on before in the CROW Act. At least the owner is not to be held responsible by a member of the public falling off a stile as is the case on CROW land. The difference in liability between Clauses 295 and 296 is considerable. What makes it worse is that the owner's liability extends to members of the public walking across coastal margins, not just the coastal route. We have already had some discussion about how members of the public should be able to expose themselves to risk if they choose, and that Natural England need not regard their safety when establishing limits of the coastal margin. Here it appears that the owner is still to be held responsible even in this area. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: I tabled the question whether Clause 296 should stand part. I did that not because I wish to remove the clause but because, as the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, has just admitted, nobody put down any amendments to it and that was the only way I could think of to be able to stand up and say something. I want to welcome the clause, so it was just a procedural device.
	This matter takes us back to the debates we had on the CROW Bill nine years ago when there was quite a consensus across the Chamber that the reduced liability that owners and occupiers have under that legislation in relation to natural features should apply to all physical features. We never managed to get that to a vote for whatever reasons under the CROW Act, and in any case it was never passed. Since then, on CROW and access land the position has been that there is reduced occupier's liability as regards natural features but not as far as manmade physical features. One only has to think of crags that have been partly quarried and you start to ask what is manmade and what is natural. In the Derbyshire Edges you might go along the bottom of a crag and trip over a natural bolder. Then you might trip over a millstone that was left there when they stopped making millstones. Therefore, the distinction between the two is not very clear.
	I want very much to welcome the fact that the land is defined as a physical feature of whatever kind and not just a natural feature. Looking to the future, I would hope that we might find an opportunity to amend the law on CROW access land to come into line with what will be the provisions on coastal access. That is for the future. In the mean time, I simply want greatly to welcome Clause 296.
	As I think this is the last time I shall speak, probably in Committee but certainly on Part 9 of the Bill, I want to thank the Ministers, the Government and the Bill team for the huge amount of time, effort and co-operation that we have had from them on consideration of Part 9. I am sure that on this part of the Bill at least this effort has borne dividends in the huge amount of consensus there is in relation to it. It is very different from the CROW Bill nine years ago. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats I would like to thank the Government and all their people for the help we have had. We look forward to locking horns again on Report.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, both for his excellent contributions to our debates and for his kind words. I must immediately refer to my officials, who have worked very hard; I am glad that he has made those comments and I very much echo them. I am also grateful for his remarks on clause stand part, because in one sense they are a response to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. Essentially, he is posing the question of whether we got the balance right. I believe we have; I think it is a fair balance.
	As someone who worries about this country developing into a risk-averse society, I think that one of the most striking outcomes of the public consultation on improving access to the coast was the real concern to ensure that there would not be any action that would result in a loss of the sense of freedom and wildness which make our coastline so attractive. People do not want to see overly managed paths and a plethora of warning signs every few yards. Of course, the coast can present hazards in places—we know that. But the fact is that over 70 million visits are made to what is described as the "undeveloped coast" each year. The vast majority of these are without incident.
	Clearly, we do not want a risk-averse approach, but we do want to ensure that people do not unduly put themselves at risk. Clause 287 specifically requires Natural England and the Secretary of State to have regard to the safety and convenience of those using the English coastal route. The effect of the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, would be to remove subsections (1), (2) and (3) from Clause 295. They make it clear that no duty of care is owed by Natural England or anyone acting on its behalf under the law of negligence when preparing or proposing the coastal route. This is in connection with any failure by it to erect signs warning of hazards or to exclude or restrict access.
	The aim of this clause is to clarify the legal position. Without it, it would be up to the courts to decide whether it was appropriate to impose a duty of care in any given case. Apart from the risk-averse behaviour that that might lead to, we think it highly unlikely that the court would impose such a duty. But we do think it prudent to set out the position clearly on the face of the legislation.
	I believe that the approach we have set out in Clause 295 is measured; it reflects the position that many who responded to our public consultation wanted us to take. People must ultimately take responsibility for their own safety. We do not think it is appropriate or proportionate that Natural England or the Secretary of State should have a significant level of responsibility for accidents that may occur as a result of people choosing to use the new right of access to the coast.
	The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, was quite right then to refer to Clause 296 and to ask whether we got the balance right. We think we do, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made some very important points in relation to that. The CROW Act itself limited the liability of occupiers of access land to those exercising the right of access in respect of risks arising from natural features, subject to some safeguards. That is where the occupier has not acted intentionally or recklessly. Recognising that there are many more non-natural features on the coast than are likely to be on open country, the responses to public consultation supported reduced liability to be extended to include other, non-natural features. This clause provides for that reduced level of liability, subject to safeguards that the occupiers have not acted intentionally or recklessly.
	If, for example, a land owner or occupier has installed steps to a previously private beach for their own use, they would not, subject to safeguards which I have mentioned, be liable where a user of the right of access is injured using them. We think that the provision of reduced occupiers' liability is part of the fair balance that this Bill strikes between the interests of the public in having rights of access and the interests of owners and occupiers. The reduced liability will benefit occupiers of coastal land where there is already access. We think it will minimise the burden where new access is created. These provisions have been widely welcomed by landowners and users alike, which suggests that we have the balance right here.

Earl Cathcart: I thank the Minister for clarifying the situation. I started by saying that the amendment was probing, and I thank the Minister for setting out the position so clearly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment A364 withdrawn.
	Clause 295 agreed.
	Clause 296 : Occupiers' liability
	Amendment A364A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Clause 296 agreed.
	Clauses 297 and 298 agreed.
	Clause 299 : Interpretation of this Part
	Amendment A364B
	 Moved by Lord Livsey of Talgarth
	A364B: Clause 299, page 191, line 18, at end insert—
	""relevant functions" means in relation to Welsh Assembly Government—
	(i) its functions under Part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (access to the countryside),
	(ii) other functions as it considers it appropriate to exercise for the purposes of securing the objectives in (16.1) and (16.2)"

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Patience is a great virtue. We now come to the powers of the National Assembly for Wales in relation to the Bill. We feel that access is not wholly adequate from the point of view of recreation. We have consulted the British Mountaineering Council, which has concerns about rock climbing access and matters of that kind.
	Amendment A364B would ensure that the issues contained in Matter 16.1 under Clause 300 concentrate on the functions of the National Assembly for Wales, or the Government of Wales. In fact, the Government themselves have moved to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006 with their own amendments and through clauses contained in the Bill. The Assembly does not have the power to do this, and we are seeking to amend some of the issues which the Government have raised in Clause 300.
	Clause 300 recommends changes to the Government of Wales Act with the addition of Matter 16.1, which refers to the establishment of,
	"a route (or a number of routes) for the coast".
	Matter 16.2 seeks to secure,
	"public access to relevant land for the purposes of open-air recreation".
	The Welsh Assembly Government have already committed to Matter 16.1 with a coastal access improvement programme for the all-Wales coastal path. That was started in 2007 and is aimed at improving access to the coast for local communities and visitors through local path movements. The all-Wales coastal path is due to be completed by 2012, creating a walking route around the entire coast of Wales. This is a welcome development throughout Wales, and visitors to Wales universally welcome it.
	However, there is a feeling that, in order to maximise increased public access to the coast and to match the real need on the ground, area coastal access is needed as well as linear access. That is essential to the coastal access provision for Wales, and the Welsh Assembly Government must seek to implement Matter 16.2 as soon as possible. This is the only way in which access for open-air recreation can be delivered. The linear route is felt to be too limited as an access option, as it does not provide for right of access to the shoreline, beaches or cliffs, and it is important that that is achieved. Equally, as noted, footpath access will not give users the right to leave the footpath and access the coast. Landowners and recreational groups both have reservations about the difficulties in managing access limited to a footpath. We have covered a lot of that already in our debates.
	Amendment A364B establishes that there is a disparity between the coastal access regimes outlined for England and contained in this Bill and the coastal access improvement programme already being implemented in Wales. Clauses 286 to 299 outline measures to create a long-distance coastal path in association with that route and a margin of land along the length of the English coast accessible to the public for the purpose of enjoyment, in conjunction with that route or otherwise, and that this will be achieved through provisions outlined in the CROW Act 2000 and changes to the National Parks and Countryside Act 1949. Crucially, the legislation supporting the coastal access scheme for England stressed the desirability of that route adhering to the periphery of the coast and providing views of the sea. On the landward side, typical land forms such as dunes and cliffs will automatically be spreading.
	This is very welcome, obviously, but our amendments—I am referring not only to Amendment A364B, but to Amendments A364C, A367A, A367B and A368A—achieve the following. Amendment A364C would insert:
	"The Welsh Assembly Government must exercise the relevant functions in order to secure the following",
	objectives, which are mainly of a recreational nature. Amendment A367A replaces "relevant land" with,
	"a margin of land along the length of the Welsh coast",
	which is what is desired and is in fact the case in the English parts of the Bill. This will ensure continuity and uses the same form of words as in Clause 286. Amendment A367B would insert, after "at the coast",
	"or the foreshore or is land adjacent to the foreshore (including any cliff, bank, barrier, dune, beach or flat which is adjacent to the foreshore)".
	In order to strengthen the meaning of "relevant land", a stronger form of words is used for clarity and certainty. The form of words is taken from Schedule 3 to the CROW Act 2000.
	Finally, Amendment A368A will strengthen the need to ensure that coastal land falling under the definition set out in Section 3 of the CROW Act is included with any new right of access. What is interesting is that there are amendments to this part of the Bill from the Government and I am keen to establish what the synergy is between the government amendments and the amendments to which I have just referred. I beg to move Amendment A364B.

The Duke of Montrose: The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, has worked his way very neatly round this whole question of Matter 16.1 and Matter 16.2, which are about to become Matter 16.2 and Matter 16.3, and there is ample room for confusion in all of that. I should be interested to hear the Minister explain his view, because it appeared to me that these amendments are saying that the Bill does not give the same power to the Welsh Assembly Government as it gives to the Secretary of State in England. I am surprised to hear that that is the case and I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this matter. It was also interesting to hear the noble Lord say that it appears that the coastal route around Wales requires to be bigger and to contain more land than the coastal route around England. I do not know whether that is the policy of the Welsh Liberal Democrats or whether it has wider demands.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for initiating this limited debate and to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for his contribution. I will try to answer his point in a moment. Clause 299 confers important new legislative competence on the National Assembly for Wales in relation to public access to, and routes for, the Welsh coast. It will do this by providing framework or general powers for the National Assembly. The new powers in this clause will add two new matters to Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006. The two matters will be added to Field 16, "Sport and recreation".
	The first matter will enable the National Assembly for Wales to bring forward a measure or measures for the establishment and maintenance of a route, or a number of routes, for the coast of Wales to enable the public to make recreational journeys. The second matter will enable the National Assembly to make a measure or measures securing public access to relevant land, again for recreational purposes. Land will be "relevant land" if it is land at the coast or land which can be used in association with either land at the coast or a coastal route.
	These provisions will support the Welsh Assembly Government's coastal access improvement programme, to which the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, referred. It is through that improvement programme that the Welsh Assembly Government intend to deliver a new all Wales coast path by 2012. The provisions will enable the National Assembly to legislate to provide new routes and secure new areas of land for public access at the coast of Wales, in addition to those delivered by the existing programme.
	We have not reached this position without consultation and I have to report that the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly Government believe the framework powers provided for by Clause 300 provide the right legislative framework to underpin the Assembly Government's work. They would enable the Assembly Government to bring forward a proposed measure or measures, having consulted stakeholders on the best way forward for Wales. We feel reasonably secure in that position in terms of the intent of the Welsh Assembly Government and the fact that they agree that this is the way that it should be tackled in terms of their enhanced powers.
	The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, would require the Welsh Assembly Government to exercise the relevant functions provided for under Part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, and any other functions that they consider to be appropriate to secure those matters provided for under this clause. In addition, the amendments would amend the description of matters to be inserted in Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act to include,
	"a margin of land along the length of the Welsh coast",
	and to add a description of coastal land.
	With this clause, we are providing enabling powers for the National Assembly for Wales to bring forward legislation in the form of Assembly measures appropriate to Wales. The amendments would constrain the scope of the Welsh Assembly Government to propose Assembly measures in this area and would fetter the flexibility of the National Assembly to determine and reflect the needs and aspirations of Wales in improving public access to the coast. I cannot therefore see where the gain is meant to be. If there were a gain, I am sure that we would have heard from the Welsh Assembly Government already and I would not be able to talk with the degree of confidence I have about the agreed way forward. I fully share the motivations of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, as I think everyone in Wales does—he already indicated just how much support there is for the concept—but we think we have done the spade work to guarantee that the Welsh Assembly Government will be able to pursue their measures and achieve their objectives by 2012 as they intend to do. I therefore hope he will accept that his amendments, which have prompted an interesting debate, are not necessary.
	The noble Lord referred to some government amendments and asked whether they have any synergy with his amendments. I am not quite sure that I can define synergy when it comes to amendments, but I think the answer is no. The reason for this is quite straightforward; the amendments are minor and technical. They are there only because they are required as a result of the National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Social Welfare and Other Fields) Order 2008, which came into force on 11 December 2008. This order inserted a new matter into Field 16 in Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act as Matter 16.1. As a result, these amendments are needed purely in order to renumber the matters in Clause 300 that will be inserted into that field. If the noble Lord can accept some synergy there, we end on a happy note of co-operation.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I thank the Minister for his response, which has clarified the situation considerably. It demonstrates that the framework powers contained in the Government of Wales Act 2006 enable the National Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government to bring forward their own measures and to manage the coastal paths around Wales in a way that replicates the will of the people there.
	The amendments were tabled because of concerns that there was a differential between the situation in England and the apparent situation in Wales. I have no doubt that this debate will appear on the record and that the Welsh Assembly Government will take account of the concerns that have been expressed. I hope that the access within the Welsh coastal area will take account of these sensitivities. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and again thank the Minister for his response.
	Amendment A364B withdrawn.
	Clause 299 agreed.
	Clause 300 : Powers of National Assembly for Wales
	Amendment A364C not moved.
	Amendments A365 to A367
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	A365: Clause 300, page 191, line 24, leave out from "measures)" to "insert" and insert ", in field 16 (sport and recreation), after matter 16.1"
	A366: Clause 300, page 191, line 25, leave out "16.1" and insert "16.2"
	A367: Clause 300, page 191, line 34, leave out "16.2" and insert "16.3"
	Amendments A365 to A367 agreed.
	Amendments A367A and A367B not moved.
	Amendment A368
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	A368: Clause 300, page 191, line 42, leave out "16.1" and insert "16.2"
	Amendment A368 agreed.
	Amendment A368A not moved.
	Clause 300, as amended, agreed.
	Clauses 301 to 303 agreed.
	Clause 304 : Works detrimental to navigation
	Amendment A369
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	A369: Clause 304, page 202, line 47, at end insert—
	"(2) In section 105(2)(a) of that Act (instruments requiring draft affirmative procedure) after sub-paragraph (v) insert—
	"(va) section 79N (power to make regulations in relation to persons appointed as inspectors etc),
	(vb) section 79P (power to extend application of Part 4A),"."

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This group of government amendments makes changes to the last parts of the Bill.
	Government Amendments A369 and A372 have the same aims as Amendments A370 and A373 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and provide that the two order-making powers which Clause 304 inserts into the Energy Act 2008, setting out the powers of inspectors and the application of the provisions to Scotland, are subject to affirmative resolution procedures, as are orders made under Clauses 95 and 105. This follows recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Moreover, I have added my name to Amendment A371 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
	I turn briefly to the other government amendments in the group. As part of our move towards a one-stop shop, Schedule 20 to the Bill inserts a clause into the Harbours Act 1964 that enables the Secretary of State or other relevant authority to delegate the function of issuing harbour orders to another body. Amendment A370A inserts an additional provision into the Harbours Act that enables the relevant authority to delegate directly with respect to the performance of delegated functions under that Act.
	Amendments A370T, A370U and A370V to paragraphs (5) and (6) of Schedule 20 make changes to ensure that the existing provisions in relation to devolution are not affected. The remaining amendments to Schedules 20 and 21 are minor, but essential to maintain the devolution settlement as it currently stands in relation to harbours, as well as, alas, to correct a grammatical error arising from the inclusion in Section 158A(1) of the Government of Wales Act of a definition of the Welsh zone.
	The amendments to Clause 313 are required to reflect correctly the geographical extent of the Energy Act 2008 and the repeal of the Coastal Protection Act 1949, as well as to reflect the correct position regarding the effect of the amendments to and repeals of FEPA. I beg to move.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I do not intend to speak for long, but I have some amendments in this group. Indeed, the Minister mentioned that he has added his name to Amendment A371, which we must not forget to move. We will come to it later, but so rare is this occurrence that the procedure is not one that I am particularly familiar with.
	I should like to thank the noble Lord for accepting the rare recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and for moving amendments to make several of mine unnecessary. There are two other amendments in my name, Amendments A370TA and A370TB, which relate to changes to the harbour order that the Government are implementing through this legislation. As we have heard, the Government are attempting to make sure that an objection to a change does not automatically lead to a public inquiry. This seems sensible, given that not every objection needs to result in one, but the changes must not be of such an extent as to allow legitimate and substantive objections to be fobbed off. Amendment A370TA seeks to give the objector the opportunity to confirm that he does in fact want a public inquiry and for that request to be given due consideration. Amendment A370TB considers whether it might not be useful for national representative organisations also to be able to make an objection in addition to the bodies already set out.
	That is all I have to say on these amendments. I know that it is not customary to make long speeches of thanks at this stage of a Bill, but I would like to thank the Minister and the team supporting him for the help we have been given in trying to achieve consensus on the Bill, a point also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. There has been strong agreement within the Committee to make this a better Bill, and indeed its Committee stage may well be one of the longest that we have ever had during the course of our parliamentary activities. However, it has certainly been productive. With that, I shall sit down.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Perhaps I may refer briefly to Amendment A370V, which states in proposed new subsection (4):
	"If the objection was made by the Welsh Ministers to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State must cause an inquiry to be held under sub-paragraph (3)(a)",
	which merely states that an inquiry can be caused to be held. I should like to know why Welsh Ministers cannot cause an inquiry to be held rather than the Secretary of State. It is a small but important point in the interpretation of the legislation.
	Perhaps I may add my thanks to the Minister and the Bill team for carrying out their duties in bringing this Bill to its conclusion at this stage.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I thank both noble Lords for their generous remarks. It has been a very long Committee. This Bill had its Second Reading in December and we are nearly into May. But the thoroughness with which the Bill has been scrutinised in Committee means that we can look forward to a pithy Report, focusing on the key parts that noble Lords have identified that we need to come back to.
	On the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, we have to respect the devolution settlement. He may be weary of this being used as a response to his questions and amendments, but under paragraphs 18 and 28 of Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act 1964, which I am sure he is intimately aware of, Welsh Ministers can cause an inquiry to be held when the Secretary of State is determining a harbour order. These amendments are simply changing Schedule 20 to ensure that we do not remove this ability. They do nothing to undermine Welsh Ministers' ability to cause an inquiry to be held.
	The noble Lord, Lord Taylor is right; we must remember to support Amendment A371. I did everything I could to show that it was technically defective because opposition amendments always are, but in this case I commend him on the quality of his drafting.
	On Amendment A370TA the noble Lord is right to raise the issue that, in paragraph 10 of Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act, providers of an application must publish notice of their application for a harbour revision order. That notice must state that any person who wants to object should do so in writing to the Secretary of State, specifying the grounds of the objection within 42 days. Paragraph 19 of the same Schedule 3 places the Secretary of State under a duty to consider any objections made and not withdrawn before making a determination. I understand that objectors are keen to ensure that they get a chance to put in a supplementary submission if, for example, having discussed their objection with the applicants, their points are not fully met. In practice, once the initial objections and representations have been made, applicants will then either come to an agreement with the objectors or attempt to answer their points in a response to the Secretary of State. If there remains a disagreement, the Secretary of State will invariably seek a further view from the parties before proceeding to a decision. We think adding a requirement to seek the subsequent views of all objectors would add unnecessary complexity and delay to the process.
	On Amendment A370TB, the wording of Schedule 20 is based on the last wording used in the Harbours Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has introduced into this House on three occasions but which up to now has unfortunately not been enacted. Central to proposals to streamline the inquiry procedures—proposals which received wide support from noble Members during the passage of the Harbours Bill in previous Sessions—is the discretionary power for the relevant authority to hold an inquiry. In order to achieve the long-standing aims of these modifications, the list of bodies that can cause an inquiry needs to be kept to a justified minimum. That is why the conservation bodies which act as the Government's statutory advisers were added to the list in the Harbours Bill in 2003 to put additional environmental safeguards in place for what can be large complex developments. We would like to keep the list to those bodies at this stage.
	I hope noble Lords will see these as constructive comments on the noble Lord's amendments. The government amendments are mainly for clarification and are a sensible tidying up of the Bill.
	Amendment A369 agreed.
	Amendment A370 not moved.
	Clause 304, as amended, agreed.
	Clause 305 agreed.
	Schedule 20 : Amendments of the Harbours Act 1964
	Amendments A370A to A370S
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	A370A: Schedule 20, page 290, line 8, at end insert—
	"42AA Directions as to performance of delegated functions
	(1) This section applies where any functions are exercisable by or in relation to a person by virtue of an order made under section 42A by a relevant authority.
	(2) The authority may from time to time give directions to the person with respect to the performance of the functions.
	(3) A person to whom directions are given under this section must comply with the directions.
	(4) An authority which gives a direction under this section must publish the direction in a manner likely to bring the direction to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it."."
	A370B: Schedule 20, page 290, line 24, leave out "42A" and insert "42AA"
	A370C: Schedule 20, page 290, line 28, leave out from "order" to end of line 29 and insert "which makes provision excluding, modifying or repealing—"
	A370D: Schedule 20, page 290, line 30, after "Marine" insert "and Coastal Access"
	A370E: Schedule 20, page 290, leave out line 37
	A370F: Schedule 20, page 290, line 40, leave out "delegate" and insert "Secretary of State"
	A370G: Schedule 20, page 290, leave out line 42 and insert—
	"(4) The order or scheme must not include any provision falling within subsection (1) or, as the case may be, (2)"
	A370H: Schedule 20, page 290, line 45, leave out "making of it" and insert "inclusion of that provision in the order or scheme"
	A370J: Schedule 20, page 291, leave out lines 2 to 6
	A370K: Schedule 20, page 291, line 13, leave out from "order" to end of line 14 and insert "which makes provision excluding, modifying or repealing—"
	A370L: Schedule 20, page 291, line 15, after "Marine" insert "and Coastal Access"
	A370M: Schedule 20, page 291, leave out line 22
	A370N: Schedule 20, page 291, line 25, leave out "delegate" and insert "Welsh Ministers"
	A370P: Schedule 20, page 291, leave out line 27 and insert—
	"(4) The order or scheme must not include any provision falling within subsection (1) or, as the case may be, (2)"
	A370Q: Schedule 20, page 291, line 30, leave out "making of it" and insert "inclusion of that provision in the order or scheme"
	A370R: Schedule 20, page 291, leave out line 32
	A370S: Schedule 20, page 291, leave out lines 36 to 39
	Amendments A370A to A370S agreed.
	Amendment A370T
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	A370T: Schedule 20, page 291, line 44, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) and insert—
	"(2) For sub-paragraph (1) substitute—
	"(1) This paragraph applies if an objection to the application was made to the appropriate authority and has not been withdrawn.
	(1A) This paragraph does not apply if—
	(a) the appropriate authority decides that the application is not to proceed further,
	(b) the appropriate authority considers that the objection is frivolous or trivial,
	(c) the objection does not specify the grounds on which it is made, or
	(d) the objection was not made within the period allowed for making it.
	(1B) Before deciding the application under paragraph 19, the appropriate authority may—
	(a) cause an inquiry to be held, or
	(b) give to the person who made the objection an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the appropriate authority.
	(1C) If the objection—
	(a) was made by the Welsh Ministers to the Secretary of State, and
	(b) is not an objection regarding compulsory acquisition of a parcel of land,
	the Secretary of State must cause an inquiry to be held under sub-paragraph (1B)(a).
	(1D) If, in a case where sub-paragraph (1C) does not apply,—
	(a) the objection was made by a person within sub-paragraph (1E), and
	(b) that person makes a request in writing to the appropriate authority that the objection be referred to an inquiry or dealt with in accordance with sub-paragraph (1B)(b),
	the appropriate authority must either cause an inquiry to be held under sub-paragraph (1B)(a) or cause the objection to be dealt with in accordance with sub-paragraph (1B)(b), as the appropriate authority may determine.
	(1E) The persons within this sub-paragraph are—
	(a) in the case of an application to the Secretary of State, the Welsh Ministers;
	(b) any local authority for an area in which the harbour (or any part of it) is situated;
	(c) the relevant conservation body;
	(d) if the order will authorise the compulsory acquisition of land, any person who is entitled to be served with notice under paragraph 11.".
	(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—
	(a) for "sub-paragraph (1)(a)" substitute "sub-paragraph (1B)(b)",
	(b) for "Secretary of State" substitute "appropriate authority", and
	(c) for "he" substitute "the authority".
	(4) In sub-paragraph (3)—
	(a) for "Secretary of State" substitute "appropriate authority",
	(b) omit paragraph (a), and
	(c) in paragraph (b), for "he" substitute "the appropriate authority"."

Viscount Ullswater: I must advise your Lordships that if Amendment A370T is agreed to I cannot call Amendments A370TA and A370TB because of pre-emption.
	Amendment A370T agreed.
	Amendments A370TA and A370TB not moved.
	Amendments A370U and A370V
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	A370U: Schedule 20, page 292, line 37, at end insert—
	""the appropriate authority" means—
	(a) in a case where the application was made to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State;
	(b) in a case where the application was made to the Welsh Ministers, the Welsh Ministers;"
	A370V: Schedule 20, page 293, leave out lines 6 to 42 and insert—
	""28 (1) This paragraph applies if an objection to the proposal was made to the proposing authority and has not been withdrawn.
	(2) This paragraph does not apply if—
	(a) the proposing authority decides that the proposal is not to proceed further,
	(b) the proposing authority considers that the objection is frivolous or trivial,
	(c) the objection does not specify the grounds on which it is made, or
	(d) the objection was not made within the period allowed for making it.
	(3) Before deciding the application under paragraph 29, the proposing authority may—
	(a) cause an inquiry to be held, or
	(b) give to the person who made the objection an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the proposing authority.
	(4) If the objection was made by the Welsh Ministers to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State must cause an inquiry to be held under sub-paragraph (3)(a).
	(5) Where—
	(a) the objection was made by a person within sub-paragraph (6), and
	(b) that person makes a request in writing to the proposing authority that the objection be referred to an inquiry or dealt with in accordance with sub-paragraph (3)(b),
	the proposing authority must either cause an inquiry to be held under sub-paragraph (3)(a) or cause the objection to be dealt with in accordance with sub-paragraph (3)(b), as the proposing authority may determine.
	(6) The persons within this sub-paragraph are—
	(a) any local authority for an area in which the harbour (or any part of it) is situated, and
	(b) the relevant conservation body.
	(7) Where an objector is heard in accordance with sub-paragraph (3)(b), the proposing authority must allow such other persons as the proposing authority thinks appropriate to be heard on the same occasion.
	(8) In this paragraph—
	"local authority" has the same meaning as in paragraph 18;
	"the proposing authority" means—
	(a) the Secretary of State, in a case where it is the Secretary of State who proposes to make a harbour revision order;
	(b) the Welsh Ministers, in a case where it is the Welsh Ministers who propose to make a harbour revision order;
	"the relevant conservation body" has the same meaning as in paragraph 18."."
	Amendments A370U and A370V agreed.
	Schedule 20, as amended, agreed.
	Clause 306 : Regulations and orders
	Amendment A371
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	A371: Clause 306, page 203, line 37, at end insert—
	"( ) section 70;"
	Amendment A371 agreed.
	Amendment A372
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	A372: Clause 306, page 203, line 38, at end insert—
	"(ca) section 95(1) by virtue of section 95(2);
	(cb) section 105;"
	Amendment A372 agreed.
	Amendments A373 and A374 not moved.
	Clause 306, as amended, agreed.
	Clauses 307 to 311 agreed.
	Schedule 21 : Repeals
	Amendments A374A to A379A
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	A374A: Schedule 21, page 294, line 9, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Government of Wales Act 2006 (c. 32) In section 158(1), the word "and" preceding the definition of "Wales"." 
		
	
	A375: Schedule 21, page 295, line 6, leave out "147 and 148" and insert "148 and 149"
	A376: Schedule 21, page 297, line 25, at end insert—
	"The repeal of any enactment by Part 4 of this Schedule has the same extent as the enactment repealed."
	A377: Schedule 21, page 297, line 31, at end insert—
	
		
			  "In Schedule 1, paragraphs 4(1) and 5." 
		
	
	A378: Schedule 21, page 298, line 7, leave out "In Schedule 1, paragraphs 4(1) and 5."
	A379: Schedule 21, page 299, line 35, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) In Schedule 25, paragraph 70. 
			  In Part 9 of Schedule 37, the entry relating to the Theft Act 1968 (c. 60)." 
		
	
	A379A: Schedule 21, page 300, line 36, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Harbours Act 1964 (c. 40) In Schedule 3, paragraph 18(3)(a)." 
		
	
	Amendments A374A to A379A agreed.
	Schedule 21, as amended, agreed.
	Clause 312 : Interpretation
	Amendments A380 to A382 not moved.
	Clause 313 : Extent
	Amendments A383 to A389
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	A383: Clause 313, page 209, line 13, at end insert—
	"(iii) section 304 (which inserts Part 4A into the Energy Act 2008 (c. 32));"
	A384: Clause 313, page 209, line 25, after "licensing)" insert ", other than paragraph 1 of Schedule 8"
	A385: Clause 313, page 209, line 26, after "than" insert "section 142 and"
	A386: Clause 313, page 209, line 40, after "licensing)" insert ", other than paragraph 1 of Schedule 8"
	A387: Clause 313, page 209, line 41, after "than" insert "section 142 and"
	A388: Clause 313, page 209, line 44, at end insert—
	"( ) The amendments and repeals made by this Act to provisions of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (c. 48) do not extend to any of the Channel Islands or any British overseas territory."
	A389: Clause 313, page 209, line 45, after "Council" insert—
	"(a)"
	Amendments A383 to A389 agreed.
	Amendment A390 not moved.
	Amendments A391 and A392
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	A391: Clause 313, page 209, line 46, after "licensing)" insert "or this Part, so far as relating to Part 4,"
	A392: Clause 313, page 209, leave out line 47 and insert "territories specified in subsection (6A), and
	(b) where any such provision is made in relation to any of those territories, repeal any provisions of Part 2 or 4 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (c. 48) (deposits in the sea etc) as they have effect as part of the law of that territory.
	(6A) The territories mentioned in subsection (6) are—"
	Amendments A391 and A392 agreed.
	Amendments A393 and A394 not moved.
	Clause 313, as amended, agreed.
	Clauses 314 and 315 agreed.
	House resumed.
	Bill reported with amendments.

House adjourned at 11.54 pm.